Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL HERITAGE

Southern Arts

Mr. Faber: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what will be the outturn costs for funding of Southern Arts in 1996–97. [28331]

The Minister of State, Department of National Heritage (Mr. Iain Sproat): The forecast outturn costs of Southern Arts in 1996–97 are £4,306,000.

Mr. Faber: In view of that generous figure, can my hon. Friend explain why Southern Arts has this year seen fit to slash the core funding that it makes available to the Athenaeum theatre in Warminster in my constituency? Is he aware that this popular local theatre is now in something of a quandary in that, if it puts on the popular theatre that people want to see, it loses funding on artistic criteria grounds, but if it puts on the politically correct claptrap that Southern Arts wants it to put on, no one comes to see its productions? Does my hon. Friend agree that the Athenaeum is precisely the kind of popular, small, local theatre that we should be doing more to support? Will he draw this case to the attention of the Arts Council?

Mr. Sproat: I know from our discussions of the keen interest that my hon. Friend takes in the Athenaeum theatre in Warminster. Given that the Arts Council provides some 82 per cent. of Southern Arts' funding, I shall draw Southern Arts' activities to the attention of the chairman of the Arts Council.

Millennium Projects

Mr. Corbyn: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what forecasts she has made of expenditure on millennium projects for each year until 2000. [28341

The Secretary of State for National Heritage (Mrs. Virginia Bottomley): The Millennium Commission currently has grant commitments totalling £721 million, and plans to spend more than £1 billion on capital projects. The commission expects to offer a £200 million grant to the millennium exhibition and to allocate £200 million to millennium awards to individuals.

Annual expenditure is led by the progress of projects, with lottery income determining expenditure levels. The commission expects cash outgoings to rise to around £100 million this year, £350 million in 1997–98 and £450 million in 1998–99.

Mr. Corbyn: Is not the Secretary of State a bit alarmed by the volume of expenditure going on a number of millennium projects that cannot be said to be of much long-term value or any social benefit? I am thinking of projects such as the ludicrous ferris wheel that it is proposed to build across the river from here. Does she think that it would be better if, as a nation heading into the 21st century, we set the real objective of ensuring that every homeless person had a roof over his head and that there was no longer a housing shortage? People who are desperate for a roof over their head, or somewhere decent to bring up their children, are not excited by the idea of 2,000 ft high office blocks, a ferris wheel or exhibition centres. Does she think that we should be considering this country's social needs as a priority and an indication of how we want to live in the next century?

Mrs. Bottomley: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that we should use lottery money cautiously and sensibly with a view to the long term. I note that his constituency has already received about £2.25 million in 22 awards for worthwhile and exciting projects such as a law centre and schemes to help young and disadvantaged people and to provide child care.
I and the Millennium Commission regard the marking of the millennium as a moment of great importance, when we should be making a statement about our achievements, abilities and potential as we move into the next century. I am delighted that, only the other day, my shadow was commending the millennium exhibition and the great opportunity that it would provide for Britain.

Mr. Jessel: Is not the millennium exhibition of great social value, in that it will generate jobs for 5,000 people, regenerate a deprived area of inner London and attract a large number of tourists to Britain, whose spending generates a massive amount of employment? Will not people be absolutely astonished if we get to the millennium and there is no great central national exhibition to mark it?

Mrs. Bottomley: My hon. Friend is right. The Greenwich exhibition offers the prospect of an enormous regeneration project, creating a huge number of jobs. The Labour party cannot be trusted on any aspect of the lottery. Its Front-Bench spokesmen did not support the National Lottery etc. Bill on Second Reading. The hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) said that it would lead to a great threat to jobs. The Henley centre recently said that, overall, the lottery would result in 110,000 new jobs, with 28,000 created this year alone.

Mr. Raynsford: Does the Secretary of State agree that, with just over three years to go before the start of the millennium year, there is no time to waste if we are to make a success of the exhibition? Like everyone who has seen the models and plans, she will know that the exhibition has the potential to be a hugely exciting showcase for all that is good in Britain in 2000 and a worthy successor to the great exhibition of 1851 and the


1951 festival of Britain. If that potential is to be realised, it is essential that there should be no prevarication or delay and that the Secretary of State and the Deputy Prime Minister, who is also involved, should give an absolute commitment to delivering it in time and on budget.

Mrs. Bottomley: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman; he is right to pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister, who has played an important part. Tribute should also be paid to Simon Jenkins, the chairman of the exhibition committee, and to the member of the committee nominated by the Leader of the Opposition.
The exhibition is an exciting prospect. I was delighted that my opposite number, the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), said only the other day:
The millennium exhibition is a huge opportunity for attracting foreign visitors to Britain. This is the ideal chance … to show that they can provide the same level of service within the UK as they do for people travelling overseas.
I have further encouraging news for the hon. Gentleman. Last Friday, the Highways Agency announced that the last two contracts for the M11-Al2 link road had been awarded, ensuring that that piece of transport infrastructure will be in place. I travelled on the Jubilee line extension from Stratford to North Greenwich the other day—

Mr. Tony Banks: You did not tell me.

Mrs. Bottomley: In parenthesis, I apologise to the hon. Gentleman.
There is progress with English Partnerships, and further sponsorship proposals are coming through. I recognise that hon. Members want to bring all uncertainty to an end. The Millennium Commission shares that wish. I hope that the final aspects will have been resolved before our meeting on 11 December.

Mr. Dicks: What is the difference between one day and another and one date and another? Is not the whole millennium thing a load of nonsense? I never thought that I would come to say this, but for once in my political life I agree with the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn).

Mrs. Bottomley: It is said that a kind of millennium fever is inclined to take over communities, making them believe that pigs may fly. Having heard my hon. Friend's comments, I am beginning to think that it may have affected the House. It seems to me that, in times of uncertainty and turbulence, the millennium offers this country and the planet the opportunity for a moment of regeneration and renewal to bind communities together. That is the spirit that the Millennium Commission has sought to pursue. Overall, it is widely welcomed.

Dr. Moonie: May I point out to the Secretary of State that my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) and I voted in favour of the National Lottery etc. Act 1993? It does not become her to suggest otherwise.
The Labour party has always supported the concept of the millennium exhibition at Greenwich, and will continue to do so. Given the failure of the Deputy Prime Minister

to secure one signed cheque from the private sector to help meet the cost of the exhibition, the continuing arguments about ownership of the site, the rumours of rapidly escalating costs and the absence to date of a board of directors for the project, will the Secretary of State assure the House that the exhibition will be completed on time and within budget? If she cannot give that assurance, when can we expect a full statement on the subject?

Mrs. Bottomley: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman recalls that he was not a Front-Bench spokesman at the time of the Second Reading of the National Lottery etc. Bill.
On the hon. Gentleman's serious point, he is absolutely right to say that there can be no question of anyone signing a blank cheque for the millennium exhibition. It is precisely that point that Barry Hartop, the chief executive of the proposed operating company under the chairmanship of Bob Ayling, is examining prior to the Millennium Commission meeting on 11 December. Neither the Millennium Commission nor, for all the elements of the exhibition that turn to us for support, the Government will be prepared to sign a blank cheque.
I welcome the Labour party's constructive approach. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that his party's nominee, Michael Montagu, is a member of the commission. I appreciate the number of informal discussions that have taken place throughout the process. The exhibition is a magnificent project, and no magnificent project anywhere in the world is completed without some difficulty and some anxiety as the deadline is approached. I am confident that we are keeping to the appropriate timetable and, as the hon. Gentleman knows, I have made it clear that I am happy for information to be given to the Labour party on a number of matters of detail. I have no wish for the exhibition to become the subject of party political disagreement.

Arts Sponsorship

Mr. Colvin: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what assessment she has made of her Department's initiatives to boost private sector sponsorship of the arts. [2836]

Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: Since its inception in 1984, the Government's pairing scheme for the arts has brought more than £110 million of new money into the arts. Earlier this year, I announced improvements to the scheme aimed at encouraging longer-term partnerships between businesses and arts organisations and projects which increase access to the arts. Indications so far are that the new rules are proving popular with arts organisations and businesses alike.

Mr. Colvin: My right hon. Friend has clearly acknowledged the outstanding success of the business sponsorship pairing scheme. Will she take this opportunity to congratulate the Association for Business Sponsorship of the Arts, which administers the scheme? Does my right hon. Friend have the measure of the Chancellor? When we hear the Budget statement next week, shall we see a continuation and, if possible, an extension of the business sponsorship pairing scheme?
Does my right hon. Friend agree that Hillier's gardens and arboretum, which she saw on Saturday in my constituency and which form a heritage project drawing


in money from all sources—Government money, local government money, business sponsorship money, private funding and, we hope soon, lottery money—are a good example of how multiple sourcing for the arts and the heritage is probably the way forward?

Mrs. Bottomley: My hon. Friend is quite right to praise the pairing scheme and the work of ABSA. It has been a formidable success, added to now by the massive increase in funding for the arts through the national lottery and support from central Government and local government. We now see a renaissance and excitement in the arts which was rarely seen in previous years.
My hon. Friend also commended the Sir Harold Hillier gardens, which are an enormously exciting opportunity for further funds from the lottery heritage fund. I cannot, of course, comment on the application, but I can see the great opportunity for investing in the natural environment. Another local project, the Bursledon windmill, is a wonderful example of the industrial and rural heritage, both of which stand to benefit from our tremendous national lottery.

Millennium Celebration

Mr. Alison: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what consideration is being given to emphasising the Christian character of the millennium celebration. [12837]

Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: The Government recognise that the millennium marks the 2,000th anniversary of the birth of Christ. I have spoken with the Archbishop of Canterbury about how this can best be reflected in a national celebration of the millennium. My Department has set up a millennium co-ordinating group on which the Churches are represented. The Millennium Commission has funded a number of projects reflecting the Christian character of the millennium, including grants for church bells and bell towers and for church floodlighting. The beginning of the third millennium will be a time of renewal and celebration for people of all faiths and for those with none.

Mr. Alison: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that encouraging answer. Does she recall that our forebears at the time of the previous millennium started to build our great cathedrals as a fitting landmark of the Christian heritage? Does she agree that a modern equivalent landmark might be the millennium Christian village project, of which the hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Timms) and I have given her details?

Mrs. Bottomley: I did indeed meet the team and I was enormously impressed by the millennium Christian village project. Involving young people in promoting spiritual renewal and regeneration is extremely important at this special time. My right hon. Friend will also be aware of the recent announcement by English Heritage and the National Heritage Memorial Fund of an additional £20 million a year to invest in the built heritage of our churches. I welcome the document on ecclesiastical heritage issued today by the Church of England. Our churches form part of the fabric of our villages, towns and

communities and it is important that we invest in their built heritage as well as the spiritual renewal of our country.

Mr. Dalyell: Rather than investing in grandiose projects, would it not be best to concentrate much-needed money on the simple restoration needs of mediaeval churches? The Secretary of State need go no further than the crypt of the House of the Commons to see the deterioration that is being caused—perhaps through water ingress—to such unusual pieces of religious art as the picture of Judas Iscariot? Should we not look to our own House of Commons as an example of what should be done by way of restoration?

Mrs. Bottomley: I shall certainly look into the matter. Having opened the Houses of Parliament art exhibition this morning, I believe that our House is in order in that regard, thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin). However, the hon. Gentleman is right to refer to the many small projects that should be funded. So far, 104 churches have received lottery funding amounting to £10.3 million. There are many other projects. For example, some 400 churches are involved in a floodlighting scheme, and there are also schemes for church bells. As the hon. Gentleman said, small schemes as well as large ones should be part of the tapestry of provision.

Sir Patrick Cormack: May I refer my right hon. Friend to the initiative that the Archbishop of Canterbury launched this morning, to which she referred? Will she give a firm pledge that not only extra lottery money, but more money from the Government, whose real responsibility it is, will go towards the restoration and maintenance of our historic churches? There can be no fitter way of commemorating the millennium than ensuring their survival through the next century.

Mrs. Bottomley: I shall note the comments by my hon. Friend, who has been extremely constructive in helping us to make considerable progress in easing access to and understanding of schemes for churches and cathedrals. Substantially more money is spent on those projects, although a high standard of conservation practice is required. Investment in our churches is one of the most worthwhile heritage projects that we can support.

Mr. Tony Banks: I am not averse to crucifying a few Tories to celebrate the millennium or, indeed, feeding them to the lions, but will the Secretary of State bear in mind that we live in a multi-faith society? According to the Jewish calendar, this year is 5757, according to the Islamic calendar it is 1417, according to the Indian Hindu calendar it is 2054, and according to the Bengali Hindu calendar it is 1403. [HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."] Of course I am; I could not remember all those dates. In those circumstances, we could be in permanent millennium mode. The only thing that would put me off—and upset the country—is the thought that the right hon. Lady would be in charge of the celebrations.

Mrs. Bottomley: I am disappointed to hear the hon. Gentleman being so uncharacteristically ungentlemanly. I am a Conservative and Britain is a Christian country. It is a Christian millennium. Having said that, I accept that we


live in a multi-faith society, and I am pleased that the Millennium Commission and other distributing bodies have been supporting projects from a range of faiths. For example, the Millennium Commission is looking sympathetically at an exciting project supported by the Hindu community in Preston, and other similar ventures.

Sport in Schools

Mr. Congdon: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what steps she is taking in respect of competitive sport in schools; and if she will make a statement. [2838]

Mr. Sproat: The Government are determined to restore competitive team games to the heart of school life. It is a crucial element of our overall strategy for sport, which ranges from revived sport in schools, through sport scholarships for top athletes, to the British academy of sport.

Mr. Congdon: I warmly welcome the Government's strategy of trying to get competitive sports back into schools, and particularly welcome the announcement of the proposal to give scholarships to athletes as young as 11. Will my hon. Friend also encourage initiatives such as that being undertaken at Ashburton high school in my constituency, where a feasibility study is being carried out into providing dual use sports facilities for the school?

Mr. Sproat: I know of the project at Ashburton high school from previous discussions with my hon. Friend, and I congratulate him on the vigour with which he supports it. I shall gladly draw the attention of the Sports Council to what he says about that excellent project.

Tourism

Mr. McAvoy: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what proposals she has to encourage overseas visitors to London to visit the regions and countries within the United Kingdom; and if she will make a statement. [28391]

Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: We want overseas visitors to benefit from travel to the countries and regions of the United Kingdom. The image of London is still Britain's best known image abroad, and it is of great benefit to the whole country. The focus London initiative, to which we have allocated an additional £4 million of public money over the past year, highlights the great diversity Britain offers and the ease of access from London. Last year alone, the British Tourist Authority's British travel centre in London gave help and advice on travelling outside the capital to nearly half a million overseas visitors.

Mr. McAvoy: I accept what the Secretary of State says about the attractions of London; I have no quarrel with it. Is she aware, however, that half the overseas visitors to the United Kingdom visit only London? Surely that is an unacceptable imbalance, bearing in mind the tourist attractions of the regions of England, Northern Ireland, Wales and, of course, Scotland. If she accepts that principle, should she not be trying to do more than she has stated to get people out of London and the south-east to other parts of the country? That would help to reverse

some of the drain of defeated Scottish Tory Members of Parliament—who have taken the low road to England to get seats—such as her Minister of State.

Mrs. Bottomley: Since he represents the wonderful city of Glasgow, the hon. Gentleman is only too well aware of its huge tourism potential. If I may make a domestic comment, when I spoke to my mother last night, she said that she had just returned from a three-day stay in Glasgow during which she saw the Burrell collection and visited other wonderful museums. I shall do my best to promote Glasgow, as well as other cities.
The British travel centre works extremely effectively to ensure that those who register inquiries are encouraged to visit cities throughout the United Kingdom. From my point of view, whether such cities are in England, Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland is of little significance. We have wonderful cities and countryside and should take the opportunity of the best tourism growth for 20 years to promote not only our capital city but the entire country.

Mr. Mans: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one way to discourage visitors from going to her county of Surrey is to list various buildings on the former aerospace site at Farnborough, which would mean that the air show would leave this country for Berlin and that the full potential for aerospace heritage on that site could not be commemorated as we approach the end of the first century of aerospace activities?

Mrs. Bottomley: I congratulate my hon. Friend on being a great champion of his cause, and ingenious in finding ways of addressing it in various settings. As the constituency Member of Parliament, I am well aware of the excitement, prosperity and jobs that the Farnborough air show brings to the area. I am also aware of the responsibilities of the Department of National Heritage for proper behaviour with regard to listing. We are consulting on the heritage Green Paper, and this matter is one of the types of consideration that we are addressing. I shall certainly bear in mind my hon. Friend's comments.

Mr. Pendry: The Secretary of State talks of producing a tourism strategy document next year; surely she is aware of our strategic document, "Breaking New Ground", which was launched to great acclaim at the world travel market last week, following wide consultation. In the document, we spell out measures to ensure that overseas visitors are attracted to Britain in greater number in future. Those measures include positive proposals to improve the standards of hotel accommodation, the quality of service and the introduction of a new development of tourism Bill. Instead of undertaking a costly and time-consuming exercise, surely the Secretary of State should join the tourism industry, including Richard Branson, the Granada and Tussaud groups, the Tourism Society and many others who welcomed our document, and get a move on and implement those proposals.

Mrs. Bottomley: I wondered whether the hon. Gentleman would have the gall to mention his document, which sank without trace. I commend more the remarks of the director-general of the Confederation of British Industry, who congratulated the Department of National Heritage on all we are doing to recognise the importance


of tourism. The real point about the hon. Gentleman's document is that it is a recipe for regulation, bureaucracy and cost. That is the old-fashioned cocktail that the Labour party always believes in. All the tourism industry wanted was the Labour party to say that it would fight against the minimum wage, the social chapter and the 48-hour week, which are likely to cost £100 million and affect 15 per cent. of the industry. That is what the industry wanted, and it is what the Labour party has singularly failed to deliver.

Screen Violence

Mr. Bernard Jenkin: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what recent representations she has received concerning violence on television and in films. [2840]

Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: My Department has received 65 letters about screen violence during the past three months. I shall meet the chairmen of the BBC, the Independent Television Commission and the Broadcasting Standards Council again shortly to consider how they are responding, and might respond further, to the public's concern on the issue, which, as I have often made clear, I share.

Mr. Jenkin: I thank my right hon. Friend for her initiatives on the matter. Does she agree that there is no doubt that the constant screening of television violence permeates society and affects people's behaviour, especially that of the more vulnerable children in society? Will she disregard such bits of propaganda as the survey produced by Sheffield university, which purports to have produced an analysis showing a reduction in the depiction of violence on television? We all know that it is not so much the timing and content of violence as the insidious nature of portrayals of violence that causes so much concern and damage to society.

Mrs. Bottomley: I totally endorse my hon. Friend's comments. The problem is not only the number of violent incidents, which has fallen, but the quality of their portrayal and how powerful they are in influencing behaviour. I congratulate my hon. Friend on the way in which he pursues the cause—representing, as I know he does, the National Viewers and Listeners Association, whose headquarters are in his area. We must be determined to achieve further progress, and that is the message that I shall reinforce to the regulators. I shall congratulate them on some encouraging signs so far, but tell them that the people of Britain will not be satisfied until they see that commitment translated into practice.

Mr. Maxton: Will the Secretary of state and all Conservative Members who are so concerned about violence in society, instead of worrying about Violence on television, take the first active Step this evening by voting for a total ban on handguns?

Mrs. Bottomley: The position on that matter is clear. I hoped that the hon. Gentleman was going to say that we should be worried not only about what we see on our television screens, but about what young people do with their time. That is one of the reasons we have been so anxious to change the lottery rules to enable more

investment in sport, training and coaching. Later this week, the Arts Council will make announcements about arts for everyone, to encourage our young people to be involved in worthwhile activities. I am pleased that we are able to fund initiatives to take that forward.

Mr. Simon Coombs: Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the fact that the BBC has recently published new producers' guidelines on such issues as sex and violence on television?
As most young children are now so computer-literate that they can decode the V-chip with the greatest of ease, does my right hon. Friend agree that the main responsibility for keeping children away from violence on television lies with parents?

Mrs. Bottomley: Parents undoubtedly have a key responsibility. The worrying development of children having televisions in their own rooms means that they can watch television in an isolated way, and I would suggest that, in such cases, the messages of violence are more powerful. I congratulate the BBC on its statement of promises and on its revised producers' guidelines; the House will watch with great care to ensure that they are translated into action.
I share my hon. Friend's concerns about the V-chip. We must learn from Canada's experience and ensure that it works in practice. My Department is examining the V-chip, but I suggest—as does my hon. Friend—that it will not be a substitute for parental responsibility.

National Lottery (Derbyshire)

Mr. Skinner: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will list all payments from the national lottery awarded in Derbyshire. [12841]

Mr. Sproat: To date, the national lottery distributing bodies have made a total of 112 awards worth a total of £7,105,070 to projects in Derbyshire. A full reply will be published in the Official Report.

Mr. Skinner: That is quite remarkable, because when my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) wanted to find out from the Government the ranking of constituencies in terms of awards, he was told that he could not have the information as it would involve disproportionate cost. He then went to the Library and, for £15, was able to find out that the three local Labour constituencies—Chesterfield, North-East Derbyshire and Bolsover—were in the lowest 10 per cent. of all the constituencies in Britain. Is it not remarkable that the Secretary of State—who we cannot stop yacking on television about "spreading good news"—refuses to provide real information that is uncomfortable for the Government? There is one law for the friends of the Secretary of State down here, and another for Labour constituencies in the north.

Mr. Sproat: I have apologised in writing to the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) for the Department misunderstanding his question, and I very gladly apologise to him again now. Derbyshire has not done so badly. Of the 101 counties in the United Kingdom, it is ranked 52nd, which is not too bad. If the


hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) wants some more lottery projects in his constituency, perhaps he will do some more work to get them.

Mr. Ian Bruce: Does my hon. Friend agree—[Interruption.]—if he can hear me over the barracking—that many counties have done extremely well out of the lottery, but that others were perhaps slow off the mark in deciding to apply for lottery funding because their Members of Parliament were against the lottery distributing money to so many good causes?

Mr. Sproat: There are many reasons why different constituencies and counties get more or fewer projects. The distributing bodies have been told by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that they must take account of geographical distribution, but they are not allowed to solicit projects and are bound to consider each on its merits, which means that there will be a difference in spread around the country.

Channel 4

Mr. Whittingdale: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what is her policy for the future funding of Channel 4; and if she will make a statement. [2843]

Mr. Sproat: The Government's policy on Channel 4 funding remains as set out during the passage of the Broadcasting Act 1996—to remove mandatory payments to the reserve immediately and to reduce the liability for payments to channel 3 in two stages in 1998 and 1999.

Mr. Whittingdale: Will my hon. Friend congratulate Channel 4 on its success in avoiding recourse to the safety net and on making a profit last year of £128 million? Does that not demonstrate that it is possible for Channel 4 to meet its remit and to operate commercially? Will he therefore consider its privatisation at the first opportunity?

Mr. Sproat: My hon. Friend makes a good point about the profits of Channel 4, on which I congratulate the company. I well remember his brief, yet powerful, speech on 18 June in favour of the privatisation of Channel 4. The Government have made no decision about privatising the channel, but we keep all options under review.

Mr. Chris Davies: Will the Minister go further and rule out any prospect of privatising Channel 4? Does he accept that the quality and diversity of broadcasting offered by the 35 television channels in New York compare poorly with that offered by the four channels here? The public service obligation is an important principle and it should be maintained.

Mr. Sproat: I have no doubt that the Government will take full account of what happens in New York and in Channel 4 when considering all the options.

Dr. Moonie: A suspicious man might consider that there was some significance in the fact that the hon. Member for Colchester, South and Maldon (Mr. Whittingdale), who asked the main question, and the Minister are wearing the same old school tie; fortunately, the Minister did not see his way to going quite as far as

some of us might have feared. We join him in welcoming the increased funds available to Channel 4, which will immediately be channelled into programming. What discussions has he had with Channel 4 about the routes through which the funding will go? Will he state his support for the principle of Channel 4 as it was set up—as a publicly funded and operated channel, catering for minority tastes and interests?

Mr. Sproat: We have had discussions with Channel 4 about rejigging the funding formula, and will have further discussions as seem appropriate. As far as privatisation is concerned, I will support the Government line.

Tourism

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what measures she plans to take to improve the competitiveness of the tourism industry. [2844]

Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: Following the recent launch of my Department's latest report in the "Competing with the Best" series, we are working with the industry on an action plan to improve the quality of tourism's most important resource—its people. We are co-operating with local government and the tourist boards on the follow-up to the recent conference on tourism and the planning system. My Department and the tourist boards are now working with the recently established industry forum to draw up a new strategy for tourism, which I plan to publish early next year.

Mr. Hughes: Let me make it clear that if my old school had a tie, this would not be it.

Mr. Boateng: Chip on your shoulder.

Mr. Hughes: Fifteen-love.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be foolish indeed to harm an industry that employs more than 1.5 million people and contributes more than £38 million to the gross national product by introducing the measures proposed in the social chapter—a minimum wage and a 48-hour week? Is not the real message to anyone living in a town that depends so much on tourism that a Labour Government would not only damage wealth but would rob the area of jobs?

Mrs. Bottomley: Whether or not my hon. Friend went to the right school, he certainly makes the right point about protecting tourism. The minimum wage, the social chapter and the working time directive all present major threats to an industry that relies on a flexible work force. That is the key message that comes over time and again. Ramon Pajares of the Savoy Group said:
What I want from Government is the freedom to run my business.
That is the message from Alton Towers and the British Hospitality Association. Time and again, leaders in the industry, who are creating the jobs that are necessary for future generations, say that they do not want the regulation, interference and burdens that are the only recipe offered by the Labour party. The other day,


Sir Terence Conran said that London was the culinary centre of the world. The Labour party's recipe would be poison to the industry.

Mr. Alan Howarth: Does the Secretary of State accept that, if our tourism industry is to be fully competitive, visitors must be able to inform themselves of the history of the areas in which they find themselves? Does she agree that the "Victoria County History" is one of the great undertakings of British scholarship? Is she aware, however, that in many counties the project is limping along or is in abeyance for lack of funds? Will she ensure, therefore, that the National Heritage Bill is amended to make it clear that the "Victoria County History" will be eligible to receive lottery funds distributed by the national heritage memorial fund?

Mrs. Bottomley: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's point and will examine it in detail. We have been modifying heritage legislation to ensure that, as with arts and sport, we can fund education, access, participation and young people, as well as old buildings and the support structure. I will certainly consider that matter.

Midweek Lottery Draw

Mr. Spring: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what assessment she has made of the impact on betting turnover of the second weekly national lottery draw. [2845]

Mr. Sproat: No such assessment has been made. It was for the Director General of the National Lottery to decide whether to allow a midweek draw, and the impact of the draw on betting turnover was not a consideration that he was able to take into account.

Mr. Spring: My hon. Friend will know of my commitment to the national lottery, but is he aware of its impact on betting turnover, with job losses and betting shop closures? Is he further aware of the impact of the anomaly in this country whereby punters can bet on the Irish lottery but not on our own? All that is having a severe effect on the viability of the horseracing industry, because the prize money is now wholly uncompetitive by international standards.

Mr. Sproat: My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point about the racing industry, which has an excellent champion in him. The Home Office is considering whether more deregulatory measures could be introduced to help the gaming industry.

Oral Answers to Questions — LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

Legal Aid

Mr. William O'Brien: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what consultation he has had with the Law Society on the setting of priorities for legal aid support. [2863]

The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. Gary Streeter): The Lord Chancellor and I have met the president and other members of the

Law Society on several occasions in the past few months to discuss legal aid. We expect to have regular discussions as the reforms progress. I will soon start a programme of visits to local law societies to talk to practitioners about the reforms and how they will be implemented.

Mr. O'Brien: Does not the Law Society want a legal aid system that offers advice and assistance to people who pay their taxes? The way in which civil cases are attended to is a scandal. It cannot be right for people of modest means who work and pay taxes to be denied access to the legal system. People on pensions, who make contributions to legal aid, have to pay extra because of the length of time that it takes for cases to come to court. When will the Government make the system fairer and speed up the process of legal aid cases coming to court?

Mr. Streeter: The hon. Gentleman makes an important and interesting point; it is vital that we speed up access to justice, and that is one reason why the Government are implementing the Woolf reforms, which will make that access not only simpler and faster but cheaper. I am grateful to him for voicing support for our legal aid reforms; we are in discussion with the Law Society about them and it is perfectly proper and natural for the society to speak up for its members, but the Government will not be deflected from introducing the reforms at the earliest opportunity, to create a justice system of which we can all be proud.

Sir Dudley Smith: Is my hon. Friend aware that far too many people who are not entitled to it still get legal aid, especially the self-employed and those whom I would call wheeler-dealers, who have a great facility for pulling the wool over the eyes of officials and getting recompense for not only criminal but civil matters, as the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) said? That causes great resentment among those who feel that they should be entitled.

Mr. Streeter: My hon. Friend is quite right: too many weak, trivial and undeserving cases still slip through the net, which is why the Government are introducing radical reform. Tinkering with the system is not enough: we must control the budget, determine our national priorities and improve the merits test. We will do all those things, and we look forward to receiving the support of Opposition Members.

Woolf Report

Mr. Llwyd: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what is the current position with regard to the evaluation of the Woolf report; and if he will make a statement. [2864]

Mr. Streeter: On 31 October, I placed in the Library a copy of the Lord Chancellor's strategy for implementing Lord Woolf s recommendations. It proposes that the major elements of the reforms—the fast track, the multitrack and the new cost regime—will be in place by October 1998. The new civil procedure rules to underpin the changes will also be in place in time for implementation.

Mr. Llwyd: I thank the Minister for that answer. Can he please assure me that there will be no further cuts in


the availability of services in county court centres and trial centres in Wales? I have in mind in particular the Welsh language provision that is available in several county court centres; at present, we are on minimum cover, and any further cuts would be extremely damaging.

Mr. Streeter: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. It is not expected that our reforms to civil procedures will threaten county courts in Wales. I assure him that the Woolf reforms will build on the proposals for Welsh language provision in the civil justice system. He has probably already seen the literature, not only in English but in Welsh, that my Department has produced on alternative dispute resolution.

Sir Donald Thompson: Many small magistrates courts in market towns have disappeared, which has taken away a cadre of solicitors that was important to those towns. Will the Woolf report be used to re-establish some of those local centres?

Mr. Streeter: My hon. Friend is a champion of the interests of his constituents—now as he always has been. The Woolf reforms do not touch on the provision of magistrates courts. Decisions to close them are a matter for local magistrates courts committees, which always take soundings and enter into extensive consultation before taking any such decision.

Mr. Boateng: When will the Minister make public the costings of the Woolf report? What resources are to be applied to meeting its resource implications? Does he recognise that in the county courts, which will have to play a major part in its implementation, staff are being laid off and that there is widespread concern among district and county court judges? How can the country take his protestations seriously when ordinary people such as those mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) are not getting the justice to which they are entitled?

Mr. Streeter: I hope that the hon. Gentleman feels better now that he has got that off his chest. Every time he speaks, he appears to commit the Labour party to yet more spending. He may be assured that we will commit the resources necessary to implement the Woolf reforms. I also look to him to support the Civil Procedure Bill in due course.

Weymouth Land Registry

Mr. Ian Bruce: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a progress report on the rebuilding work at Weymouth land registry; and how many people are planned to be employed there in the forthcoming year. [2865]

Mr. Streeter: The new offices for Weymouth district land registry are in the final stages of construction and are on target and within budget. The main building was completed and occupied in July 1996; ancillary works are scheduled for completion by February 1997. The Weymouth district land registry employs 454 people and there are no plans to increase that number. The new building at Weymouth was necessary to replace temporary accommodation and not to facilitate expansion.

Mr. Bruce: May I put on record my thanks and that of my constituents for the investment made by the

Government in continuing to have the land registry and for ensuring that our excellent headquarters has been provided? How much money has been invested in the new headquarters? Is there any sign that house sales are starting to move and that the volume of registrations going through the land registry is increasing?

Mr. Streeter: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, whose efforts helped to bring about that building programme. He will be pleased to learn that we have so far spent more than £7.8 million on the project, which is continuing. There is clear evidence from land registry data of improvement in the housing market. The volume of registrations is increasing this year by more than 6 per cent. and there has been an average rise of 5 per cent. in prices over the first three quarters of 1996. That is good news for home owners and for the economy.

Departmental Accountability

Mr. Flynn: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what new proposals he has to improve the accountability to Parliament of his Department. [2866]

Mr. Streeter: The Lord Chancellor's Department is, and will remain, properly accountable to Parliament through its Ministers. The Government's response to the Public Service Select Committee's report on ministerial accountability and responsibility was published on 7 November.

Mr. Flynn: How is the Lord Chancellor accountable for the magistrates court changes? He said that he wanted to make them by consensus and the Minister said that he had taken wide soundings. Does he realise that those soundings have not included hon. Members? In one part of Wales, which occupies a quarter of the land mass of Wales, there will be only four courts left. My hon. Friend the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Ainger) had to write in to get his copy of the report. Is it not wrong that the House should not be fully consulted on changes that will reduce the service provided by magistrates courts throughout Wales?

Mr. Streeter: As I have said, the closure of magistrates courts is a matter for magistrates courts committees, which are made up of lay justices in each community. When a decision is made to close a magistrates court, there is, however, a right of appeal by the local paying authority. We get involved at that stage. I have already seen members of the hon. Gentleman's party and other Members representing the Principality who are concerned about the closure of magistrates courts in their constituencies. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to avail himself of the same facility, I will be delighted to see him—my door is always open.

Sir Ivan Lawrence: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the much improved accountability between his Department and Members of Parliament that I have witnessed in the past few years. In particular, I congratulate him on his Department's willingness to meet hon. Members to discuss not only constituency problems but wider ones. Problems of law are extremely complicated, and would my hon. Friend please bear in mind that the more his Department


can circulate its proposals and thoughts on any particular issue in "Dear colleague" letters or any other form, the clearer we will be about the future of the legal system and the more able to support it from both sides of the House?

Mr. Streeter: I am grateful for my hon. and learned Friend's kind words about our attempts to communicate and consult with Members of the House. We will of course continue to do that. We are always particularly keen to learn from hon. Members who have relevant experience, and my hon. and learned Friend comes into that category.

Departmental Agencies

Mr. Barnes: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many representations he received in the last parliamentary Session from hon. Members that were forwarded for answer to the agencies attached to his Department. [2868]

Mr. Streeter: In the last parliamentary Session, 642 representations from hon. Members were forwarded for answer to the agencies for which the Lord Chancellor is responsible.

Mr. Barnes: Quite correctly, Members of Parliament are not allowed to approach the courts, as that would represent interference in the operation of law and order. Traditionally they could approach the Lord Chancellor, but now in hundreds of cases it seems that many of our queries are being passed to the Court Service. Surely that suggests that that is one area at least in which the agency arrangements go too far. Our constituents expect us to be able to approach the top—the Lord Chancellor—in connection with court cases and get a response from him.

Mr. Streeter: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is quite wrong. There has been no change in ministerial accountability and responsibility to the House. In my opinion, it is quite correct that letters about specific court cases should be sent by the person with the day-to-day management responsibility—the chief executive of the Court Service. The hon. Gentleman has been a Member for nine years and surely he knows by now that, if he is unhappy with a response from the agencies, he can contact Ministers at any time. Once again I find myself saying to a Labour Member that my door is always open.

Mr. Bernard Jenkin: Would my hon. Friend agree to accept representations on the activities of judges? Is he aware of increasing concern in the House that judges are getting involved in political matters in judgments where they seem to be making up the law as they go along? Is he aware of a recent case in which a judge appeared on a television programme to campaign against my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary's legislation? Does he agree that that is beyond the remit of a judge, who should be answerable to Parliament through the laws that we pass?

Mr. Streeter: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his timing. He makes an important point, because it is for Members of the House to legislate and it is for the judiciary to implement the law of the land. However, we welcome a lively debate, including the involvement of members of the judiciary, and we do not seek to stifle

debate within our party, as, sadly, Labour Members have done in their own party in the past three years.

Law Centres

Mr. Booth: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has for the future of law centres. [2870]

Mr. Streeter: I have no specific plans on the future of law centres, which are independent and are funded from a variety of sources. On legal aid, it will be open to centres to bid for contracts of the kind proposed in the recent White Paper, "Striking the Balance", to provide legal services in their areas of expertise.

Mr. Booth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that helpful reply. Before I ask my question, I should declare an interest because I used to give regular free legal advice at a free legal advice centre. May I ask the Minister to commend the work of free legal advice centres and law centres, to do all he can to expand their work and to receive representations as to how that might be achieved?

Mr. Streeter: My hon. Friend is quite right to say that law centres are an important part of the provision of legal advice in this country, but we do not propose to expand dramatically the number of law centres in this country, as the Labour party proposes to do. That would take millions of pounds away from high-street and family solicitors and would be a further charge on the taxpayer. We have no plans to introduce such a policy.

Legal Aid

Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what recent representations he has received about legal aid. [2871]

Mr. Streeter: I frequently receive representation on this matter from professional bodies and associations, pressure groups, advice services, individual solicitors and advocates and members of the public. I have been pleased with the level of public support for our White Paper proposals.

Mr. Marshall: May I suggest to my hon. Friend that he reads The Mail on Sunday and the article by Mr. Peter Dobbie, which highlighted a case that is funded through legal aid in which the litigants and the defendants seem to be citizens of a country other than the United Kingdom and are not appearing in court themselves? Does he realise that a raft of money is being wasted on legal aid and that most of us believe that the legal aid system is out of all financial control? The sooner his reforms come into effect, the better.

Mr. Streeter: No Sunday is complete without The Mail on Sunday and, of course, there has been a spate of recent cases reported in the newspapers confirming that we are on the right track with our White Paper proposals; that there are still too many weak, trivial and undeserving cases being provided with legal aid in this country; and that a budget of £1.4 billion, which is rising at a rate of 10 per cent. per annum, is far too high. My hon. Friend is right to make the point that we must proceed with our legal aid reforms, and that is what we are doing.

Points of Order

Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. May I raise a point of order that is really a question about the moral or actual authority of you as Speaker in requiring the Government to make a statement before and not after British troops are irrevocably committed to a certain situation?
Since last Thursday, there has been a dramatic change in the circumstances in Zaire. I can understand that the Government may not have wanted to make a statement today and that they may have wanted to withhold a statement until such time as Brigadier Jonathan Thompson and his colleagues in the reconnaissance group return and report; but could we have some kind of undertaking that the House of Commons will be consulted after Brigadier Thompson has returned, but before there is any final decision to commit British forces to a situation about which—as became clear on Thursday—many hon. Members on both sides of the House are extremely anxious?
Furthermore, should not there have been some statement on the allegations that a British firm was involved in arms exports, absolutely transgressing every regulation that the House has laid down?

Madam Speaker: As the hon. Gentleman and the House know, I have no authority to compel a Minister to come to the Dispatch Box and to make a statement, but I am as keen to have information on this matter as any other hon. Member. I understand that the reconnaissance force will not be returning until either very late tonight or the early hours of tomorrow morning. I should have thought it right, proper and sensible that a thorough debriefing takes place and a report is made before a statement—an accurate statement—is made to the House. Hon. Members can be assured that I shall watch the matter very carefully—in fact, hour by hour.

Mr. David Shaw: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You will be aware that there are very strict rules on access by strangers to the House of Commons. Are there no rules on access to the House of Commons that would prevent strange millionaires from turning up at the Leader of the Opposition's office with thousands of pounds in brown paper envelopes and leaving those brown paper envelopes in that office?

Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman paints a very colourful and hypothetical picture.

Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. On Friday, the management of the Benefits Agency announced the wholesale closure of agency offices in Wales. Those wholesale closures will lead to agency office staff losing their jobs and the public losing their service. Do you know whether the Secretary of State for Social Security has made an application to make a statement to the House? If not, what pressure can be exerted to prevail upon him to make such a statement?

Madam Speaker: No Minister has let me know that he or she is seeking to make a statement on the matter. The hon. Gentleman might try to make use of the Order

Paper, or submit a private notice question or make an application under Standing Order No. 20 for my consideration. The hon. Gentleman is a senior parliamentarian who has been in the House for a long time, and he must know how to make use of the Order Paper by now.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I should be grateful if you could study the Official Report of Friday's sitting in the House when there were clear signs that Back-Bench Conservative Members were being directly briefed by civil servants who were present. As you know, that is contrary to our normal rules. Under normal circumstances I would not choose to raise the subject with you on the Floor of the House, but as Ministers were asked for an explanation during that Sitting and none was forthcoming, I hope that you will take a little time to consider what happened and perhaps rule on it at a future date.

Madam Speaker: I was not aware of what took place on Friday—it has just been drawn to my attention. My deputy dealt with the matter at the time, but I shall study the Hansard report carefully and make inquiries. I call Mr. Cohen.

Mr. Harry Cohen: rose—

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: rose—

Madam Speaker: I called Mr. Cohen. He is small in stature, but he packs a lot of personality.

Mr. Cohen: I am lost for words, Madam Speaker—[HON. MEMBERS: "Good!"] But not that lost for words.
My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) raised a point of order in which he referred to the news that a company, Mil-Tec, supplied arms to Rwanda and considerably worsened the conflict two years ago—surely the House should consider that issue. I hear what you said, Madam Speaker, about the fact that you could not order Ministers to make statements on issues of such importance, but Customs and Excise has made a peculiar statement in response to today's news about the breach of the United Nations embargo and of United Kingdom law. It said that it might consider investigating the subject if it was appropriate. Surely the House can call officials to the Bar of the House so that we can question them on important matters. Is there a procedure under which we can call Customs and Excise officers to the Bar of the House to ask them properly to investigate the breach of the United Nations embargo?

Madam Speaker: I do not think that we need to proceed in that way. The House, particularly the Treasury Front-Bench team, are well aware of the feelings of the House on the matter.

Mr. Corbyn: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. While the House understands the reply that you gave my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), there is enormous public concern about the issue of illegal arms sales to the desperate conflict in Rwanda and eastern Zaire and the allegations that those arms have been exported to Zaire illegally, via offshore islands around this country, under the cloak of secrecy.


Although we are awaiting a statement on the deployment of British troops, you will understand that many people are frightened about the immorality of the arms trade and the use of those arms to kill thousands of innocent people in a desperate conflict that needs a resolution. Surely we have a part to play if we have allowed arms from this country to go to that area.

Madam Speaker: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will use his own Front Bench and the usual channels in order to press the Government for a statement. That is what he is seeking on that matter.

Firearms (Amendment) Bill [Money]

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

Motion made, and Question proposed,

That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Firearms (Amendment) Bill, it is expedient to authorise—

(1) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any administrative expenses incurred by the Secretary of State which are attributable to that Act;
(2) the payment out of money so provided of any sums required by the Secretary of State for paying compensation in respect of—

(a) property which is surrendered or forfeited under that Act; or
(b) any other loss which may be incurred as a result of that Act; and

(3) the payment into the Consolidated Fund of any sums received under that Act by the Secretary of State.—[Mr. Howard.]

Sir Terence Higgins: I am glad to have an opportunity to speak briefly about the money resolution—an opportunity that we would not have had if the motion had been taken immediately after the Bill's Second Reading last week. I declare an interest as president of the Worthing and West Sussex shooting club, an office which I have held—totally unremunerated—for many years.
It is very important that we should debate the money resolution, because it has a significant impact on the scope for amendments that may follow. I shall therefore concentrate on the money resolution.
I make one point by way of background. In my view, although we must all have great sympathy for the victims of the Dunblane massacre, these proposals are unlikely to have a significant impact in reducing the probability of a similar tragedy occurring in future. Indeed, in my view, the proposal may prove to be counter-productive because, if I read the Cullen report correctly, the problem is not so much the current law as the way in which it has been administered; the resignation of a senior police officer bears witness to that.
If we are to drive these matters underground, and if there still are fanatical gun maniacs—I fear that there may be—they may find it more attractive to buy weapons illegally than buying them under the previous arrangements, so we may receive no warning whatsoever of a tragedy similar to that which occurred in Dunblane, whereas, reflecting on the history, perhaps we should have taken more careful note of warnings that were given in the case of Hamilton.
At all events, we shall seriously affect many of our constituents, who engage in what has always been regarded as a perfectly reputable and sensible sport. That being so, the House should pay close attention to compensating those who suffer as a result of the legislation, whatever view one may take on the overall issue.
I very much welcome, therefore, the change that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has made in the money resolution, but I want to be sure that I have understood it correctly. When we debated the matter last week, it was clear that compensation would he provided for those who were giving up firearms that would become illegal under the legislation. My right hon. and learned Friend went further; he said that he


Understood the points that were made about equipment, which may be very expensive and which would no longer be of any use to its owners. But several of my right hon. and hon. Friends, as well as Opposition Members, strongly emphasised the case of those who, as a result of the legislation, will lose their jobs or suffer severe financial strain, perhaps having mortgaged their homes to set up in business or establish a shooting range or whatever.
If I understand the amended resolution correctly, under clause 2(b) it would now be possible to move amendments to cover
any other loss which may be incurred as a result of
the Act—that is, over and above property which is surrendered or forfeited under the Act. I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary can confirm that that is so, and that it will now be possible to move amendments, for example to clause 11, which would enable us to make provision to compensate people in all the circumstances that I have described.
This is a matter of very great importance because, as I understand it, it would affect not only the amendments that could be moved in the House but those that could be moved in the other place—and no doubt their Lordships also will wish to debate those matters. I should be grateful if my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary would confirm what I have just described.

Mr. Robert Key: Is it my right hon. Friend's understanding that the money resolution implies that the Government would be prepared to pay compensation for loss of trade—this is a crucial point—rather than just for guns?

Sir Terence Higgins: As I understand it, the resolution covers any loss, other than guns and property forfeited, which may be incurred under the Bill. It is an important point if we are to deal fairly with those affected by the Bill. However, it will have a significant effect on public expenditure. No doubt we will want to debate that when we reach the appropriate clauses.
I find it surprising that, apparently, Treasury Ministers in the Cabinet must have agreed to the proposals, which are potentially very expensive. As a number of hon. Members pointed out in our debate last week, the money could be better spent on other things—for example, the police. We need to be clear about the position. In particular, we must take note of the fact that, if the Government were simply to accept the Cullen recommendations—which, in my view, would be equally effective, in that equipment would be dismantled and the parts kept in separate places—the cost of the Bill would be significantly less than it is currently likely to be. It is important that the Treasury should carefully consider whether the Government's view that they should go beyond Cullen was the most appropriate decision in the circumstances.

Sir Donald Thompson: I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way so generously. Does he

agree that it is important that we get a clear statement? The Bill is going through at a rapid pace and it will be impossible to unpick.

Sir Terence Higgins: I agree very much with my hon. Friend. The whole matter has been rushed—indeed, we will reach the guillotine motion a little later. I do not understand why it is necessary to legislate in such haste.
I want to make a final point on the narrow issue of compensation. I am worried about the provision of clause 11, which states that compensation will be in accordance
with a scheme made by him"—
that is, the Home Secretary. Surely in legislation of this sort any scheme involving large sums of public money—it has been conceded already that it is more than £100 million—should be subject to a resolution of the House. It is extraordinary that the Home Secretary should propose—I might almost say, presume—to spend public money on a scheme made by him rather than one approved by the House.
Having said that, all those on either side of the basic argument about firearms control should welcome my right hon. and learned Friend's proposals—but we want an assurance that, if we wish to amend the Bill during its later stages in the way that I have suggested, that will be possible.

Mr. Jack Straw: As I made clear in the Second Reading debate last Tuesday, it is appropriate that compensation should be paid to those private individuals who have to give up their weapons, which, until the Bill becomes law, they have held lawfully under arrangements previously agreed by Parliament. We therefore support the money resolution.
Whether the Government's proposed scheme for an 80 per cent. ban on handguns goes through, or the alternative 100 per cent. ban—which we support—it is that huge majority of decent, law-abiding handgun owners who will be seriously affected by the Bill. Their sense of grievance, which we all understand, would be all the greater if no compensation were to be offered.
Of course, no compensation of any sort was offered when a previous Home Secretary—the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Hurd)—made his original proposals in the December 1987 White Paper, "Firearms Act 1968: Proposals for Reform", which followed the atrocity at Hungerford. In that White Paper the Government were emphatic in what they said:
We have concluded that as a matter of principle it is undesirable and unjust to require the taxpayer at large to pay for the removal from the public domain of weapons which are an acknowledged threat to life.
Significantly, the White Paper went on state:
Although there will be no market for prohibited weapons in this country, authorised dealers will still be able to export them abroad, and owners will be able to recover some of the value in this way.
Given today's revelations in The Times about a wholly unacceptable arms trade between British-based companies and rebel forces in Rwanda, I think that we can all appreciate the fact that a payment by the Government would be far preferable to allowing 160,000 to 200,000 handguns to be sent abroad to who knows where.

Sir Jerry Wiggin: The hon. Gentleman mentioned the compensation situation in 1988,


and, to the Opposition's credit, in Committee on the Firearms (Amendment) Bill that year, they insisted during the debate on the sittings motion that proper compensation was payable. May I take it from what he said that he will support the proposition that compensation should be paid to anyone who is affected by the Bill—to include dealers, manufacturers and others—whom the Home Secretary has said he will not compensate?

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Yes—in the same way as the Government compensated miners.

Mr. Straw: I was planning to deal with that point. I said that we support the money resolution and, as I said in last Tuesday's debate, that we are willing to consider proposals other than those currently on the table. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will understand if I do not offer him a blank cheque before I see the proposition.
The point about the possible export of weapons that are handed in is very important. As I said, one of the many defects in the original proposal by the right hon. Member for Witney in December 1987 was that he said that former rifle owners could receive compensation by selling their weapons abroad. I think that all hon. Members believe that that is unacceptable. After the Bill becomes law, at least 160,000, and perhaps 200,000, weapons will be surrendered on payment of compensation to the police and the Government.
I should be grateful if the Secretary of State would give us an undertaking that the weapons surrendered will be destroyed or that they will not be exported by the Government without the clearest guarantees about the acceptability of the end user. In no circumstances, however, should those weapons be used for internal or external repression. I hope that he will give those undertakings in his reply.

Mr. Michael Colvin: The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) made a sedentary intervention about compensation paid to miners who lost their jobs in the rundown of the coal industry. Does the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) agree that if dealers, who currently will receive no compensation, were to receive anything like the compensation paid to miners, they would be more than satisfied? Does he also agree that the figure of £25 million to £50 million provided in the resolution is lamentably short of what will be required if one considers the valuation of firearms and of pistol shooters' equipment—which, luckily, is now being included in the compensation terms provided for by the Home Office?

Mr. Straw: If the hon. Gentleman will bear with me for a moment, I shall deal with the first issue that he mentioned. On his second point, I look forward to hearing any details that the Secretary of State may offer about the calculations.
I am glad to see the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) in the Chamber. During the debate on the Loyal Address, he mentioned the
possibility that the judges of the European Court of Human Rights may oblige the British taxpayer to provide compensation on a much wider basis".—[Official Report, 7 November 1996; Vol. 285, c. 1350.]
As I said last week when he was not in the Chamber, we are very glad to have his full support for the European convention on human rights. I should tell him that the

rights that he feels he has under the convention—which of course has nothing to do with the European Union—would be far easier to adjudicate upon if the European convention were incorporated into British law. After the next election, when we endeavour to do just that, I hope that we will have his full support.
As the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Sir J. Wiggin) pointed out, in the end the right hon. Member for Witney did agree a compensation scheme, although the right hon. and learned Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg), who was then his Minister of State, went out of his way to say that it was not to be seen as a precedent.
I mention this background because, although I certainly understand the sense of grievance among many handgun owners, they are now, under this money resolution, likely to be treated in a relatively generous way compared with others in a similar position. It is worth our bearing in mind the fact that many people whose private property is specifically affected by decisions agreed or approved by the House are not compensated at all. That is simply a fact.
Turner and Newall traded in asbestos and had no interest in running anything other than a lawful trade. It was discovered that the product was causing injury and death and it was decided that the firm could no longer produce it, but, as far as I know, it received no compensation. Nor did the manufacturers of foam-filled furniture, which turned out to be inflammable and therefore dangerous. Nor do the manufacturers of drugs that may have passed various tests and are thus approved but which are subsequently taken off the market.
Very different principles apply to the compensating of private individuals and the compensating of businesses. If we decide to compensate whole businesses, it will have huge implications for the public purse—implications that the House needs to consider other than during a debate on firearms.

Mr. Barry Sheerman: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to mention the danger of underestimating the enormous possible cost of compensating too widely or too generously. Is he aware that there is an even better parallel for non-compensation—the plight of the many British beef farmers who have been pushed to near-bankruptcy? Government action has almost destroyed the industry in which some of my constituents work.

Mr. Straw: My hon. Friend makes an important point.
Even where the private interest of constituents is directly affected by a decision made or approved by the House—for example, a decision on a road scheme—sthere is not necessarily a direct right to compensation. I have two such cases in my constituency at the moment. One involves individuals living close to the M65. The Department of Transport entirely accepts that the value of their homes has been reduced by more than 15 per cent. but they are to receive no compensation. The other involves the owners of a public house whose trade was reduced to virtually nothing because of a road scheme which meant that no one could reach the public house for six months. They, too, are to receive no compensation whatever.
We are today considering the compensation payable to the holders of guns. Eighteen months ago, the House was considering the far more serious Government proposals


to cut compensation to the victims of criminal injuries, including those injured by guns. It is a very great shame that the Tory Back Benchers who are so vocal in calling for more compensation for the owners of guns were wholly silent in May last year when we were discussing compensation for the victims of users of guns. Had they been as vocal then as they are today, a far better scheme for compensating the victims of gun injuries and deaths might have been agreed by the House.

Sir Hector Monro: I should like to add a few words to what my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Sir T. Higgins) said, but I must first point out that the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) is wholly wrong. The Government have—rightly—provided about £500 million to help farmers and the meat trade as a whole. I am glad that farmers have received that income.
As for the money resolution, I want to put a few suggestions to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State to try to ease the pain felt by many pistol and revolver shooters relative to the valuation of their weapons. Will he give us his thoughts on how the scheme will proceed? Should the Bill become an Act at the end of the year or in January, will everyone have to take all their weapons to a police station on that very day? I suspect that the police stations would be swamped with weapons. We cannot have people queuing down the street with firearms waiting to hand them in.
Are the police to take the details at that stage? When will the valuation take place? Who will do the valuation? The valuation of arms and weapons is a specialised business. It is important to have some idea of how the valuation is to be carried out. If it takes place some months after the handing-in date, will the owner of the weapons be allowed to be present at the time of the valuation and discuss it with whoever is doing the valuation?
Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Sir T. Higgins), I am glad that the Government have had second thoughts about the money resolution. It now seems that they will be a little more helpful to those who have to hand in their weapons. However, bearing in mind the fact that one reads in the papers of guns being valued at an average of £400, has my right hon. and learned Friend allowed for sufficient money? That average figure may be on the high side, although some weapons, particularly the rare and valuable ones, will inevitably be worth a great deal more.
I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will also think about gun clubs. I am thinking not of commercial rifle and pistol clubs which try to make money, but of those many private clubs at which members have scraped money together to make a secure shooting range. They may have only a dozen or 20 members, who shoot only occasionally. They will feel that all their efforts are wasted and will receive no compensation for the significant amount of money that they will lose.
We may cover the issue in more detail when we consider the specific provisions of the Bill, but will my right hon. and learned Friend give a little more information on Olympic and Commonwealth games weapons and their valuation? I went to the

Commonwealth games in Victoria, in British Columbia, and saw immaculately run ranges and high-quality pistol and rifle shooting. Has my right hon. and learned Friend given second thoughts to the Commonwealth games? I appreciate that only .22 pistols are used in the Olympics, but the Commonwealth games has always featured larger calibre pistols as well as .22 pistols and airguns. The Bill might make the shooting competitions at the Manchester Commonwealth games impossible. Those who have international shooting weapons will want to know where they stand on valuation.
All in all, I am glad that my right hon. and learned Friend has listened to those of us who have talked to him about valuation. I hope that he will be able to give us more information when he winds up, so that we can tell those hundreds of people who have written to us how things will work out.

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: I should like to follow the lead given by the right hon. Member for Worthing (Sir T. Higgins), who opened this debate on the money resolution, which has raised some significant issues. I, too, start by acknowledging the fact that the Government have paid attention to the criticisms levelled at the original money resolution. We are grateful for that, because it gives us a chance to discuss some of the issues that we had feared we would not be able to raise.
I am bewildered by the comments of the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) on the effects on businesses and those who do not count as individuals. In my constituency—I know that this will be mirrored in the constituencies of many hon. Members on both sides—there are manufacturers with small, specialist and highly developed businesses. Many have big export potential, but many also produce rifles, handguns and handgun barrels—a particular concern in my constituency—for the domestic market. Businesses big and small, as well as dealers, and those who have erected ranges suitable for handguns, have expended large sums on the facilities that they required for the previously legitimate activities of gun clubs. They will all find themselves out of pocket as a result of the Bill.
I have also had some pretty robust representations from people who have invested heavily in putting equipment into their homes for the security of their handguns. All those different categories should be considered properly in Committee. The Government are wrong if, as I understand it, they are setting their face against providing adequate and sensible compensation for companies, individuals, clubs and others who will be indirectly affected and who may suffer a significant loss or who may lose their livelihood as a result of the Bill.
Some individuals will still be able to hold .22 handguns, but they will be worth less. They will suffer loss as a result of the Bill, and they should be given fairer consideration as well.
I should like the Government to confirm the amounts quoted in the explanatory memorandum, which mentions sums of £25 million to £50 million. Those figures are, of course, not part of the legislation and are not prescriptive. They are current estimates and I should like the Government to confirm that if, as a result of further deliberation and better consideration, the House or the


Committee decides that the compensation schemes must he extended and that the finance necessary to pay for them must be increased, that decision will not be constrained by the fact that the explanatory memorandum refers to the financial effects as being between £25 million and £50 million.
I share the views expressed by other hon. Members. The financial effects are an extremely important part of the Bill. The Government's changes have been welcome as far as they go, but they do not yet go far enough. I and the majority of my colleagues want the compensation regime to be extended far beyond individuals so that it embraces anyone who has, directly or indirectly, suffered capital or revenue loss as a result of the Bill.

Sir Jerry Wiggin: I have little to add to what I said last week in opposing the Second Reading of the Bill. I strongly agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Sir T. Higgins) that generous compensation will help to allay the deep feeling of injustice that law-abiding people who enjoy shooting, under licence of the law, feel at having their sport prohibited by Act of Parliament.
Not the least of my objections to the Bill is the speed with which it is being indecently dragged through the House. We shall debate the timetable on the next motion; I will confine my remarks to the money resolution. Very strong protests were made last week about the narrowness of the money resolution, which, as originally drafted, would have precluded proper debate of those whose livelihoods, businesses, investment and wealth are associated with the sport of shooting.
I appeal to Labour Members to show a sense of justice. I did not get a satisfactory answer from the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw). Whether they are in favour of handguns or not, do hon. Members believe that it is right for us to take away people's money, people's investments and people's livelihoods by Act of Parliament without fair compensation?
I welcome strongly my right hon. and learned Friend's response to our criticism and I am grateful to him for tabling a much wider money resolution so that we can debate the issues in Committee.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: On the narrow point of fair compensation, who will carry out the assessment of compensation? The right hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) made a valid point: there are compensators and compensators, and valuers and valuers.

Sir Jerry Wiggin: If the hon. Gentleman reads the Bill with care, he will find that the matter is covered by clause 11. I share his view and that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries that a proper arrangement that is seen to be fair and transparent should be established.
Although there is much talk about such matters, on the most recent occasion, total compensation amounted to a mere £625,000. However, I understand that there are still some outstanding cases, so one views with considerable suspicion the attitude of the Treasury to such matters.
In common justice, the House must not oppress individuals by passing laws that deprive them of their livelihoods without offering proper compensation. I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will deal with that point in his reply to the debate.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Michael Howard): For the avoidance of doubt, let me begin by taking the opportunity to declare that I hold a shotgun certificate.
The money resolution replaces that which was tabled with the Bill and which would have limited debate on compensation matters to the provisions in clause 11. Clause 11 requires the Government to establish a scheme to make payments to persons who surrender firearms to a chief officer of police when the possession of those firearms will become unlawful by virtue of the provisions of clause 1.
As I announced on Second Reading, since the Bill was published the Government have received further legal advice as to their obligation to pay compensation. It was made clear to us not only that we had an obligation to pay for handguns that would become unlawful, but that our obligations would extend to firearms certificate holders who owned accessories that had no other use except in connection with those guns. In those circumstances, it is clear that the owner will have lost all the essential fruits of ownership of such accessories and must be compensated. It was clear that the money resolution would have to be revised to accommodate such accessories, so we did not move the earlier resolution.
The revised resolution before the House will allow the Government to pay compensation for accessories as well as guns. It will also allow hon. Members to raise wider questions on compensation that they believe should be the subject of debate.

Mr. Nicholas Budgen: My right hon. and learned Friend talks about the Government's obligation to pay compensation. Under our constitution there is no written obligation to do anything other than as a result of those constraints that we have allowed to be imposed on us by the European convention on human rights. Is my right hon. and learned Friend saying that he concedes that, if compensation is not paid according to the criteria of that convention, the Government and whoever succeeds them will be at risk of having claims brought against them in that court?

Mr. Howard: Clearly, it will be open to anyone to bring a case to that court. My hon. Friend is entirely right in assuming that, when I referred to obligations to pay compensation, I had in mind the provisions of the convention and the way in which they are likely to be interpreted. So I agree with my hon. Friend.

Sir Cranley Onslow: Am I right to assume that the reworded money resolution would enable my right hon. and learned Friend to establish a scheme at least as generous as that provided by the Australian Government?

Mr. Howard: I hesitate to give a simple and categorical answer to that question because I do not pretend to have any expertise in respect of the Australian scheme. I have made some preliminary inquiries about the scope of that scheme, which lead me to believe that the answer to my right hon. Friend's question is yes.


However, I hope that he will not hold me to the details of that if further examination proves the truth to be somewhat different.

Mr. Christopher Gill: For the avoidance of doubt, will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that what he has already told the House allows us at some future stage to bring forward the prospect of compensating clubs, retailers, wholesalers and manufacturers for their consequential losses?

Mr. Howard: Amendments to that effect would be in order. As my hon. Friend will be aware, I have previously indicated what the Government's view would be and I shall proceed to explain it in a little further detail in due course. The answer to his question is yes: amendments to that effect would be in order—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. I hate to correct the Home Secretary but it is not for him to decide whether amendments are in order. It is for him to decide whether to accept amendments that are in order.

Mr. Howard: I unreservedly apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and entirely accept that rebuke. The Government's purpose in tabling this revised money resolution is to ease the path of the Chair towards finding such amendments within the Bill's scope and in order.

Mr. John Greenway: Subject to the view of the Chair, is it my right hon. and learned Friend's opinion that this new money resolution would allow the House to debate an amendment to compensate the owners of .22 calibre pistols, who will have to surrender and forfeit their pistols because they do not have access to secure gun-club premises?

Mr. Howard: Subject to any rulings from the Chair, I believe that such an amendment would be in order.
I am well aware from representations that have been made to me both in the House and outside of hon. Members' concerns on the matter. It is right, therefore, that there should be an opportunity to raise those concerns in Committee and on Report, and the resolution will allow that.

Mr. George Foulkes: As the Home Secretary knows, my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) made it clear that we support the money resolution. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree, however, that our sympathy would be strained if the Sportsman's Association of Great Britain continued to distribute leaflets such as the one that it distributed at Eglinton hunt in Ayrshire this weekend, which describes the Dunblane parents as
a noisy hysterical group of social terrorists"?
The owners of handguns and the association will lose the sympathy of the Opposition and other hon. Members as a result of such leaflets.

Mr. Howard: I prefer not to comment on leaflets that I have not seen, and I have not seen the leaflet to which the hon. Gentleman refers.

I do not believe that it would be right at the moment to go into the substance of all the questions that could be raised—and, indeed, have to some extent been raised—by my hon. Friends. There will be ample opportunity to debate those matters extensively at the appropriate moment. I indicated the Government's position on this question on Second Reading. Although that position has not changed, I am confident that the money resolution will enable the Chair to permit full debates to take place.

Mr. Tony Marlow: This new money resolution has obviously been decided at the very highest level and the Treasury has obviously been involved. In contingency terms, will my right hon. and learned Friend tell the House roughly how much it is likely to cost?

Mr. Howard: I cannot do that because the money resolution as such does not actually cost any money. As I have been endeavouring to explain, the money resolution makes it easier for the Chair to permit amendments to be tabled which, subject to the will of the House, will have the effect of deciding what compensation provisions ultimately find their way into the Bill. The money resolution as such does no more than permit debate to take place. The original money resolution was restricted in that context; this one is wider in that context.

Mr. Thomas Graham: Will the Home Secretary give us a categorical assurance that if we support him tonight, the confiscated guns will not be sent to the killing fields in Africa?

Mr. Howard: That matter is not covered by the money resolution and it can be extensively debated in due course. If it is appropriate to give any assurances at that stage, those assurances can be given, but that will be the moment to deal with the matter and not now.

Mr. Straw: On that point, will the Home Secretary accept that it would provoke grave concern on both sides of the House if the weapons for which compensation was paid were to find their way into the general arms trade? It is incumbent on the Government to ensure that strict licensing regulations and arms export licences apply to any weapons that are sold which have been the subject of compensation.

Mr. Howard: I can see that there are important questions to be discussed and debated in that area, but it is not appropriate to rush to conclusions about them this afternoon and I do not intend to do so.
The position on the Government's attitude to compensation has not changed since the Second Reading debate, but the money resolution before the House will allow Madam Speaker to permit a full debate to take place, both about those who will be obliged to surrender property as a result of the Bill and about those who will suffer other losses.

Mr. Gerald Bermingham: I am grateful that the Home Secretary sat down just four minutes before time is up, because that gives me a few


minutes to pose a series of questions. On the Select Committee on Home Affairs, I was against the retention of guns, but I have listened carefully in the past few months to the representations made to me. I understand those who are sportsmen and their need for sporting facilities and—although I will vote for a total gun ban later today—I understand the position of those who will support the Government in the retention of .22s but would also like to retain other guns.
I have always believed in the fundamental principle that one cannot confiscate without proper compensation. Therefore, I seek assurances from the Home Secretary because, if we end up with total confiscation, which is what we want, or partial confiscation, as in the Bill, it is not only the people who own guns who will lose. For example, the members of several little gun clubs, including some in my constituency—one in particular is owned and run by its members—have used their personal moneys to invest and develop their personal facilities. They have a right to compensation.
A fundamental principle lies behind the right to compensation and, far too often, the Government have taken over assets without proper compensation. Back in 1974, to take an extreme example, the Government took over the water boards, and local authorities were not properly compensated. At this stage in the 20th century, we have surely reached the point at which we properly compensate a person who, through no fault of his own, loses an asset because the state has decided that that is in the best public interest.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), I will support the money resolution, but I hope that we will not look narrowly at the question of compensation. It is not only the guns and their accessories that matter, but the facilities and those who run them. In many cases, they will be put out of business and they

also have a right to compensation. I do not include the manufacturers, because they will have other outlets for their products, and the arms trade, regrettably, will continue.
I ask the Home Secretary not to be narrow-minded when he considers the matter, and to consider the generality not the particular. I hope that he will bring a sense of justice to bear on the question of compensation for those ordinary citizens who will lose not only their rights to what they consider to be a sport, but their rights to their assets and their pleasure, because the House decides that handguns should cease to exist in the greater interest and for the greater good. They should be compensated in total, not through the farce of 80 per cent. compensation.
Somebody mentioned earlier the European convention on human rights, which states—

It being three-quarters of an hour after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 50A(1)(b) (Money resolutions and Ways and Means resolutions in connection with Bills).

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Firearms (Amendment) Bill, it is expedient to authorise—

(1) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any administrative expenses incurred by the Secretary of State which are attributable to that Act;
(2) the payment out of money so provided of any sums required by the Secretary of State for paying compensation in respect of—

(a) property which is surrendered or forfeited under that Act; or
(b) any other loss which may be incurred as a result of that Act; and

(3) the payment into the Consolidated Fund of any sums received under that Act by the Secretary of State.

Firearms (Amendment) Bill (Allocation of Time)

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Michael Howard): I beg to move,
That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining proceedings on the Bill:—

COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE HOUSE

1.—(1 ) The proceedings in Committee of the whole House shall be completed in two allotted days and shall be brought to a conclusion at Ten o'clock on the second of those days.
(2) On the first allotted day—

(a) proceedings on any amendments to Clause No. 1 which may be selected and which would amend that Clause at any place before the words "a small-calibre pistol" at line 16 of page 1 of the Bill shall be brought to a conclusion one hour after the commencement of proceedings on the first such amendment;
(b) proceedings on any amendments to Clause No. 1 which may be selected and which would leave out the words "a small-calibre pistol" at line 16 of page I of the Bill shall be brought to a conclusion three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the first such amendment;
(c) proceedings on any other amendments to Clause No. I which may be selected shall be brought to a conclusion one hour after the commencement of proceedings on the first such amendment; and
(d) the remaining proceedings on Clause No. I shall be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement

(3) No motion as to the order in which proceedings are to be considered in the Committee shall be made except by a Minister of the Crown and the Question on any such motion shall be put forthwith.
(4) When the Order of the Day is read for the House to resolve itself into a Committee on the Bill, the Speaker shall leave the Chair without putting any Question and the House shall resolve itself into a Committee forthwith whether or not notice of an Instruction to the Committee has been given; and Standing Order No. 64 (Committee of whole House on bill) shall not apply.
(5) Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings to which this paragraph applies on the first allotted day.
(6) Standing Order No. 80 (Business Committee) shall not apply in relation to the proceedings to which this paragraph applies.

STANDING COMMITTEE

2.—(I) The Standing Committee to which the remainder of the Bill is allocated shall report the Bill not later than 28th November.

(2) Proceedings at a sitting of the Standing Committee on 28th November may continue until Ten o'clock whether or not the House is adjourned before that time, and if the House is adjourned before those proceedings have been brought to a conclusion, the Standing Committee shall report the Bill to the House on 29th November.

REPORT

3.—(I) The proceedings on consideration shall be completed in one allotted day and shall be brought to a conclusion at midnight.

(2) Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to those proceedings.

THIRD READING

4.—(1) The proceedings on Third Reading shall be completed in one allotted day and shall he brought to a conclusion three hours after their commencement.

(2) Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to those proceedings.

BUSINESS COMMITTEE

5.—(l) For the purposes of Standing Order No. 80 (Business Committee) this Order shall be taken to allot to the proceedings on consideration of the Bill such part of the allotted day as the Resolution of the Business Committee may determine.

(2) The Business Committee shall report to the House its Resolution as to the proceedings on consideration, not later than the fourth day on which the House sits after the day on which the Chairman of the Standing Committee reports the Bill to the House.

(3) Any Resolution of the Business Committee may be varied by a further Report of the Committee under Standing Order No. 80, whether or not within the time specified in sub-paragraph (2) and whether or not that Resolution has been agreed to by the House.

(4) No Motion shall be made as to the order in which proceedings on consideration are taken, but the Resolutions of the Business Committee may include alterations in that order.

PROCEDURE IN STANDING COMMITTEE

6.—(1) At a sitting of the Standing Committee at which any proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion under a Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee, the Chairman shall not adjourn the Committee under any Order relating to the sittings of the Committee until those proceedings have been brought to a conclusion.

(2) No Motion shall be made in the Standing Committee relating to the sitting of the Committee except by a Minister of the Crown, and the Chairman shall permit a brief explanatory statement from the Member who moves, and from a Member who opposes, the Motion, and shall then put the Question thereon.

(3) No Motion shall be made as to the order in which proceedings are to be considered in the Standing Committee, but the Resolutions of the Business Sub-Committee may include alterations in that order.

REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS IN COMMITTEE

7. On the conclusion of the proceedings in any Committee on the Bill, the Chairman shall report such of the Bill's provisions as were committed (or re-committed) to that Committee to the House without putting any Question.

DILATORY MOTIONS

8. No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of proceedings on, the Bill shall be made in the Standing Committee or on an allotted day except by a Minister of the Crown, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

EXTRA TIME

9. If an allotted day is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) stands over from an earlier day, paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings on the Bill for a period of time equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

PRIVATE BUSINESS

10. Any private business which has been set down for consideration at Seven o'clock on an allotted day shall, instead of being considered as provided by Standing Orders, be considered at the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill on that day, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the private business for a period of three hours from the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill or, if those proceedings are concluded before Ten o'clock, for a period equal to the time elapsing between Seven o'clock and the conclusion of those proceedings.

PROCEDURE AT TIME FOR CONCLUSION OF PROCEEDINGS

11. For the purpose of bringing to a conclusion any proceedings which are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee or the Business Sub-Committee and which have not previously been brought to a conclusion, the Chairman or the Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others)—

(a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;
(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed (including, in the case of a new Clause or new Schedule which has been read a second time, whether before the time so appointed or in pursuance of paragraph (a), the Question that the Clause or Schedule, or the Clause or Schedule as amended, be added to the Bill);
(c) the Question on any amendment or Motion standing on the Order Paper, whether in the name of a Minister of the Crown or not, which is moved or made by a Minister of the Crown;
(d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded;

and on a motion so made for a new Clause or new Schedule, the Chairman or the Speaker shall put only the Question that the. Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.

12.—(1) Proceedings under paragraph 11 of this Order shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.

(2) If an allotted day is one on which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) would, apart from this Order, stand over to Seven o'clock—

(a) that Motion shall stand over until the conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion at or before that time;
(b) the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion after that time shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

(3) If an allotted day is one to which a Motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 stands over from an earlier day, the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion on that day shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

SUPPLEMENTAL ORDERS

13.—(1) The proceedings on any Motion made in the House by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order (including anything which might have been the subject of a report of the Business Committee or Business Sub-Committee) shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after they have been commenced.

(2) Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to those proceedings.

(3) If on an allotted day on which any proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before that time no notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.

SAVING

14. Nothing in this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee or Business Sub-Committee shall—

(a) prevent any proceedings to which the Order or Resolution applies from being taken or completed earlier than is required by the Order or Resolution; or

(b) prevent any business (whether on the Bill or not) from being proceeded with on any day after the completion of all such proceedings on the Bill as are to be taken on that day.

RECOMMITTAL

15.—(1) References in this Order to proceedings on consideration or proceedings on Third Reading include references to proceedings at those stages respectively, for, on or in consequence of, recommittal.

(2) On an allotted day no debate shall be permitted on any Motion to recommit the Bill (whether as a whole or otherwise), and the Speaker shall put forthwith any Question necessary to dispose of the Motion, including the Question on any amendment moved to the Question.

INTERPRETATION

16. In this Order—
allotted day" means any day (other than a Friday) on which the Bill is put down as first Government Order of the Day, provided that a Motion for allotting time to the proceedings on the Bill to be taken on that day either has been agreed on a previous day, or is set down for consideration on that day;
Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee" means a Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee as agreed to by the Standing Committee;
the Bill" means the Firearms (Amendment) Bill;
Resolution of the Business Committee" means a Resolution of the Business Committee as agreed to by the House.

The Bill takes forward the Government's response to the dreadful events that took place eight months ago at Dunblane primary school. Last week, the House gave a Second Reading to the Bill. Later today, we will begin the detailed debate here on the Floor of the House of the first five clauses, concerning the banning of high-calibre handguns.

It is the duty of this House to give the highest priority to those matters that directly affect the safety and protection of the public. If ever there was such a matter, it is this Bill. Because of the importance of its subject matter, the House has agreed that its first five clauses should be considered by a Committee of the whole House. The allocation of time order allows two days for this, and provides that the proceedings shall be brought to a conclusion at 10 o'clock on the second day.

Hon. Members from all parties have an interest in these provisions, and the order that we are discussing allows a very full debate on them. The order allows six hours in total for the debates on clause 1. That is a substantial amount of time, and I am confident that it will enable hon. Members on both sides of the House to make their points effectively.

Within that period, the order allows three hours for discussion on any amendments which may be selected and which would leave out the words "a small calibre pistol" at line 16 of page 1 of the Bill. Such an amendment—in the name of a number of hon. Members—has been tabled, and is supported by Opposition Front Benchers.

If that amendment were accepted, it would amend the Bill so as to introduce an almost complete ban on handguns of all calibers, rather than confining the ban to handguns above .22 inch calibre, as the Government propose. This is an important matter. It is the central issue of the disagreement between the Government and Opposition Front Benchers, and it is right that it should


be fully debated on the Floor of the House. We believe that it is right that a substantial time should be allowed for that part of the debate.

The order would thereafter allow one hour for any further amendments on clause 1, and an hour for the debate on the question as to whether the Clause should stand part of the Bill. The order goes on to propose that the Standing Committee considering the Bill should report the Bill not later than 28 November, or 29 November in the event that proceedings in Standing Committee continue on 28 November after the House has adjourned.

The order provides for the proceedings on Report to be completed in one day and brought to a conclusion at midnight. It similarly provides that the proceedings on Third Reading shall be completed in one day and brought to a conclusion after three hours. The Government believe that the order will provide the opportunity for a full and detailed scrutiny of this legislation, while ensuring that it is dealt with with the urgency that this important subject requires.

Mr. Jack Straw: Between March 1974 and April 1979, 12 Bills were subject to guillotine motions, and I believe that each one was opposed by the then Conservative Opposition. Between May 1979 and the end of 1995, 59 Bills have been subject to guillotine motions, and each one, I believe, has been opposed by the Labour Opposition.
Last Tuesday, the right hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling)—who I am sorry is not in his place—stood up, admirably, for Back-Benchers' rights, and he was entirely correct to do so. Some of us remember that, between 1979 and 1983, the right hon. Gentleman was the Patronage Secretary and Chief Whip to the Government. During that period, he ensured the passage of 13 guillotine motions—one more than during the entire period of the previous Labour Government.
This motion is, as it were, the exception to the rule—for we support it. We gave clear undertakings that we would facilitate the passage through Parliament of firearms legislation, and we believe that this motion is necessary to ensure that the measure reaches the statute book by Christmas, or soon thereafter. If there is a Division, my right hon. and hon. Friends and myself will vote with the Government in the Aye Lobby. That vote, if it takes place, will be a whipped vote, not least because we think it essential that the House reaches a conclusion today on the key issue of a total or partial ban on handguns.
As far as the official Opposition are concerned, however, all the divisions on the merits of gun control will be free votes. I have listened with great care to Ministers trying to explain why a free vote on caning is justified, while a free vote on gun control is not. I must tell the Home Secretary and the Minister of State that the more I hear their arguments, the less I think of them. This is an issue that should be informed not by party belief or ideology but by the conscience and judgment of hon. Members on both sides of the House.
The only serious argument for the Government's decision to impose a whipped vote is the one that they cannot deploy in public—they know that on a free vote a

clear majority would be in favour of a total ban on the use of handguns. By insisting on a whipped vote, the Government display remarkably little confidence in their own arguments. We want to get the timetable motion through as quickly as possible, so that, whatever happens in the Lobbies tonight, the public will be able to see who has in practice won the argument about the case for a total ban.
During the brief debate on the money resolution, some Conservative Members charged that today's debates were taking place in haste.

Mr. Nicholas Budgen: They are.

Mr. Straw: The hon. Gentleman says that they are, but we would not have agreed to a timetable motion in these unusual circumstances, in which the Opposition have co-operated with the Government in tabling the motion, if we thought that the matter were being dealt with in haste. The parents of Dunblane and the public could rightly criticise the House, not for dealing with the issue in haste, but for dealing with it too slowly. The atrocity in Dunblane took place on 13 March 1996. Lord Cullen's inquiry was established on 21 March 1996 and sat for 26 days from 29 May until 10 July, giving full consideration to a great many of the issues before the House.

Mr. Tony Marlow: We are not implementing Cullen.

Mr. Straw: The hon. Gentleman is right. As has been pointed out in previous debates, Lord Cullen said in the body of his report that he was making recommendations that should be considered by the House, and that it was exclusively for the Government and Parliament to decide what gun controls should be introduced. It was never suggested that the House would delegate its clear responsibilities for determining the laws of the land to an inquiry under Lord Cullen or any other distinguished or learned gentleman.

Sir Jim Spicer: My recollection of the debate and discussion that took place when Lord Cullen was invited to set up the inquiry is that there was general agreement on both sides of the House that no one would move until the inquiry had reported. Somewhere along the line, someone—the Opposition parties in particular—lost sight of that agreement, and came out with a decision in advance of the proposals.

Mr. Straw: I dealt with that point at some length in the debate last Tuesday. My hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) and I put our evidence to Lord Cullen as a result of our discussions with the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Home Secretary. We gave our evidence saying, for example, that there should be a total ban on handguns. We made that absolutely clear, but we also said that we would reserve our final judgment until we had seen the results of Lord Cullen's inquiry, which is exactly what we did.
The fact that such advice was not followed by the six Conservative Members of the Select Committee on Home Affairs remains a matter of the deepest regret to my right hon. and hon. Friends and myself. As the minutes made


clear, they had before them a resolution moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin)—a member of that Committee—to the effect that the Committee should not produce a report until after Lord Cullen had produced his report. I am sorry to say that, for their own reasons, the six Conservative members of the Select Committee decided to produce the report prematurely; partly as a result, a huge outcry arose against the recommendations, and the existing support for a total ban was increased.
Lord Cullen's inquiry reported to the Secretary of State for Scotland on 30 September. Since then, the report's recommendations and the issue of a total ban have been the subject of discussion in the House on three occasions—two statements on the inquiry on 16 October, the debate on the Loyal Address on 28 October and the debate on Second Reading on 7 November—and now there is today's debate. It could therefore not possibly be argued that the House has proceeded in haste on the issue.
Sometimes parallels are drawn, in a form of special pleading as to why the Government should not come to a conclusion, with the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991. Anyone who was in the House when that legislation was—it is true—pushed forward in panic, will know that there is no parallel whatever with the process of decision making that led to that Act and the process that led to the Bill and the alternative propositions that we are discussing today. The Dangerous Dogs Act was introduced in haste, without a proper inquiry, and we have all lived to rue the day.

Mr. Budgen: And with a guillotine.

Mr. Straw: The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West says, "And with unity." The one thing that is guaranteed, not least by his presence, is that there will not be unity on the issue, and there is no suggestion that there should be.
We are completely unapologetic for our support for the guillotine. We believe that, eight months after the atrocity in Dunblane on 13 March, we owe it to the victims and their relatives and friends to bring to a conclusion the crucial issue of whether there should be a total or a partial ban on handguns. If we do that this evening, it will not be a second too soon.

Mr. Nicholas Budgen: The whole House knows that this guillotine is bad and even disgraceful. The proper use of the guillotine occurs when there have been excessive speeches or filibustering and when the sense of the House is that the legitimate opposition to a measure has gone too far and has ceased to have any support from outside; we then reluctantly proceed to curtail the debate.
This is the worst sort of guillotine, because it is an agreed guillotine; the House runs the risk of banding together as some form of lynch mob, taking away without proper consideration the rights of a significant and honourable minority.
When hon. Members say that we must act for the sake of the parents of Dunblane, I am reminded of our discussions about capital punishment; all of us who are opposed to capital punishment have had from time to time to deal with people whose relatives have been killed and

who say, with great force, "Oh, but if only we'd had capital punishment, my daughter's murderer would have been deterred."
On such occasions, our duty as legislators is to say, "Well, I'm sure you believe that, but as a matter of fact we don't think that the evidence about deterrence is as strong as you suggest." In the same way, we as a House are surely entitled to say to the parents of Dunblane, "We understand your feelings; we share your grief; but we wonder whether the solution that you put forward is going to have the effect that you so much hope for."
It is important, as we talk about doing something for the parents of Dunblane, to remember one central fact: 96 per cent. of the crimes committed with firearms are committed with unlicensed weapons, upon which the Bill will have no effect whatever.

Mr. Terry Dicks: The logic of my hon. Friend's argument worries me. We will not stop trying to get rid of illegal weapons while we are getting rid of legal ones. The two go hand in hand. Crack cocaine is available only illegally; does he suggest that we should make that lawful?

Mr. Budgen: That is entirely different. My point is that this legislation is directed towards the 4 per cent. of offences that are committed with legally held handguns. We are proposing expensive, cumbersome legislation, which is said to be demanded by the Dunblane parents—

Mr. John Garrett: How will a guillotine motion prevent anyone from making such points?

Mr. Budgen: Hon. Members always believe that the whole nation must have been listening to our excellent speeches, especially if it is their own speech, and that it has heard the arguments. That is not so. Most people outside the House are uninterested in the great issues.

Mr. Garrett: How does the guillotine affect that?

Mr. Budgen: I shall explain. It is by repetition, by argument and by demonstrating that there are people who hold a contrary view with as much force as those who hold the other view that we begin to understand that, in our grief or anger, we may be mistaken. The legislation tries to reduce the 4 per cent. of crimes that are committed by people with legally held handguns. It is reasonable to carry out our survey of the matter slowly, not least because of the money.
Money is important. Somewhere, no doubt, a gentleman aged 85 with a defective heart will be visiting his general practitioner's surgery to ask for a heart transplant. He may have with him five relatives who also demand it for him. The doctor will have to tell the old man, politely and diplomatically, that the cost of a heart transplant is not justified for a man of 85. It will be difficult, but it is one of the jobs that a GP has sometimes to discharge. It is not unreasonable for the House sometimes to have to tell people such as the Dunblane parents that, while we understand their anguish, we wonder whether their proposal would have the excellent effect that they want it to have.


The money is important, because everyone knows that the House feels uncomfortable about the legislation. That view is not held only by Conservative Members but by many Opposition Members who have in their urban areas patriotic people who have been encouraged by successive Governments to have gun clubs. They have regarded them as being like the Territorial Army.
Those people are suddenly being regarded as bad citizens—dangerous people or awful nutters, who might do something such as Thomas Hamilton did. They resent that. What is our collective will going to be? Unless we go slowly and try to restore our sense of balance, and that of the country, we will say, "Okay, we have done these people a frightful injustice, but let's throw a lot of taxpayers' money at it."

Mr. Tam Dalyell: The hon. Gentleman mentions the taxpayers' money. What does he think the volume of compensation that will be asked for is likely to be? I have heard the figure of £1.2 billion being thrown around. That may seem staggering, but, given the antique value of many of the guns, it is perhaps not an exaggeration. The Home Secretary was reluctant to name a figure, which I can understand. What is the hon. Gentleman's figure?

Mr. Budgen: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that point. I asked in the House some time ago how much the compensation would be. I had a document from one of the shooting organisations that put the figure at between £500 million and £1 billion. The hon. Gentleman will remember that the original money resolution suggested that the cost would be between £on and £n. The money resolution has now been widened enormously.
One has only to listen to this debate for five minutes to discover hon. Members who find that it is not convenient to tell the parents of Dunblane that what they want will not achieve their legitimate objectives; that it is uncomfortable and unpleasant to have to tell them that we disagree; and who therefore say, "Let's throw a bit of public money at this." I am not averse to throwing public money about in small quantities, but this case will involve very large quantities.
Paragraph 2(b) of the amended money resolution refers to
any other loss which may be incurred as a result of that Act".
That could easily be £ion; it could easily be more. Before we consider whether that is a sensible way to reduce the 4 per cent. of crimes that are committed with licensed weapons, we should ask how £million might be used elsewhere.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Not under this guillotine motion.

Mr. Budgen: These are all points that can be raised during the course of these agreed proceedings, which will be rushed through with the agreement of the House and of the Front-Bench spokesmen, and, most of all, with the Opposition abandoning their traditional role of ensuring proper debate.
In the unlikely event of there being a Labour Government after next May, the Opposition will find themselves in an extraordinary position. Labour has said that there will be no extra money for the national health service and not much extra for education. It is anxious to be the party of fierce controls on public expenditure, so that there is no risk that it might be accused of intending to stick up taxation on smart people from Islington or people who earn a hundred grand a year at the Bar, and so that the middle class can be reassured.
However, the Opposition are conniving at something that may cost £500 million. The Government have agreed to give £500 million extra funding to the health service to stave off crisis; £500 million on £64 billion is quite a bit of money. We will end up with an enormous bill for this legislation.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, you might say that this is wide of the mark, but it is not. We need to discuss the Bill slowly, so that, when Ministers or the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-East (Mr. Turner) are asked why Wolverhampton hospital cannot have another maternity unit, they can say that it is because we have allocated the money to reduce, possibly, the 4 per cent. incidence of firearms crimes that are committed with licensed guns. That is why we need to debate the issue slowly.
On this occasion, the Opposition have joined the lynch mob. They have abandoned their traditional role of ensuring proper debate and proper discussion. That is a disgrace. There is no doubt that there is nothing more tyrannical than an agreed House of Commons.
When my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary next has a row with the courts or finds that the House of Lords is cutting up rough with him, and we wonder in a detached way why it is that we have, as a nation, allowed ourselves to be subject to the indignity of the supervisory control of the European convention on human rights—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is experienced beyond belief on the European convention on human rights, but I do not believe that it has much to do with the guillotine.

Mr. Budgen: No, with the greatest respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, it is extremely relevant to the consideration of this agreed guillotine. Why is it that the British nation is prepared to deny the sovereignty of our Parliament? It is because, from time to time, our Parliament acts as a lynch mob. That is what we are doing today. Why is it that the courts are eroding our sovereignty? Why is it that the doctrine of judicial review has been so extended? It is because lawyers and judges say that Government after Government have eroded the power of the House of Commons, and with it the rights and dignities of those who send us to this place.
We deny ourselves our most important duty if we do not give this legislation the careful scrutiny that it certainly demands.

Mr. David Winnick: Unlike the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen), I believe that the House of Commons is carrying out its rightful duty, and I hope that it will come to a rightful conclusion at the end of our debate.


I have no disagreement with those hon. Members who are opposed to the legislation and who obviously do not want the guillotine motion to be carried. Their opposition is a perfectly legitimate parliamentary weapon, because if one is not in favour of the principles of certain legislation, one is not likely to be in favour of the guillotine.
Those hon. Members, mainly on the Conservative Benches, who do not want to see a ban on handguns, be it according to the Government's proposals or what we would propose, will oppose the motion. As my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) said, they will act as I have done on most occasions, when I opposed guillotine motions for the simple reason that I opposed the relevant Government legislation.
I do not believe that the House is acting in haste—if anything, my criticism is that we have acted too slowly. I did not want an inquiry to be held after the terrible massacre of 16 children and their teacher on 13 March. I believed that the Government had a duty to act immediately after the tragedy at Dunblane.
That inquiry took place, and now, eight months and five days after one of the greatest tragedies to occur in our country—the deliberate killing of 16 young children and their teacher—the House of Commons is at long last debating the relevant legislation. I therefore cannot accept for one moment that we are legislating in haste, or that our approach is too hurried. I believe that we have a duty and a responsibility as the House of Commons to deal with a problem that should have been dealt with by legislation after the massacre at Hungerford in 1987.
The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West made much of compensation, and almost seemed to make a joking matter of the amount of money that might be paid out. I ask the House, what about compensation for those parents who lost their children and the husband and family of the teacher who was killed at Dunblane? It is not a matter of money. I accept that compensation might be paid to the gun owners, but, at the end of the clay, the question for the House is what action we can take to try to prevent another Dunblane.
Of course I must accept that, should the Government's proposals be accepted, or should a total ban on handguns be agreed, as I would like, there is no guarantee that another Dunblane will not occur, any more than there was a guarantee that another Hungerford would not take place. But I believe that there is less chance of such a tragedy occurring again if the desired legislation is passed. That legislation should be passed as quickly as possible, especially after all the delay that has already occurred.
The Government believe that a ban on 80 per cent. of handguns is sufficient, but I do not agree. If one is going to legislate, why not go the full hog? Why not take action along the lines that most people in the country want? Let there be no doubt that most people want a total ban on handguns, as shown in survey after survey. That is why I believe that action is necessary, and why the guillotine is quite justified.
Certain people are campaigning in favour of handguns. I can understand the anxiety of those who have been involved in a perfectly legitimate sporting activity. Shooting does not happen to be a hobby of mine, and I imagine that it is not a hobby for most of my right hon. and hon. Friends, but I accept that, up to now, it has been a perfectly legitimate one and within the law.
I certainly have no sympathy, however, with the smears that have been made, even of the parents who lost their children. I have referred to those tactics during previous Home Office questions, and my hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) quoted them today. How can those Conservative Members who support the views of the gun lobby possibly not find those tactics as offensive as I do? I believe that they do.

Sir Jerry Wiggin: The British Shooting Sports Council, which has briefed me and my hon. Friends, has absolutely nothing to do with the organisation that has recently sprung up, and for reasons that I do not understand. I am perfectly happy to dissociate the shooters who are represented by Conservative Members from that organisation.
I must tell the hon. Gentleman, however, that the law-abiding shooting fraternity, to which he has just referred, has been subject to a co-ordinated press campaign that has reviled the motives of those who enjoy shooting, as though there was something evil in the very possession of a gun. I hope that he will have some sympathy for the disquiet and injustice felt by law-abiding people who go about their law-abiding business.

Mr. Winnick: I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman says. I have never been involved in any smear campaign against those who have practised a legitimate sporting activity, but the massacre at Hungerford in 1987 changed my mind about guns. I confess that I had not thought a ban necessary before that. If I must indulge in some self-criticism, perhaps I should have been more active in asking questions then, although I am sure that it would not have resulted in anything along the lines that I would have liked. I did not continue the campaign that many of us started for all handguns to be banned. If we had done so, perhaps we could now speak with a clearer conscience.
I have to say that, while I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman said in disassociating himself and those of his hon. Friends who share his views from the sort of smear attack that I mentioned, those attacks were nevertheless deeply offensive—especially those directed against the very people who lost their loved ones on 13 March. The debate will be much better if such smears and innuendoes are avoided.
After the guillotine motion is out of the way, I hope that my hon. Friends' amendment will be carried; even if it is not, however, we shall at least have made some substantial progress. Banning 80 per cent. of handguns is undoubtedly a step in the right direction. It will be welcomed in the country, even though there is an overwhelming majority, which extends far beyond Scotland, for a total ban on handguns. That is why it is so necessary that the legislation is debated and the House of Commons reaches a conclusion as quickly as possible.

Mr. Michael Alison: I am—stemporarily, I hope—ambivalent about the motion. I am certain that the time allocated to debate the money resolution, which finished at about 4.30 pm, was inadequate to provide opportunities to debate the compensation aspect of the Bill. I hope that I shall be able to stay in order by telling my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary that there is a possible conundrum relating to compensation


that might be so difficult for the clever chaps at the Home Office to work out that we will need to use all the time allocated for consideration of the Bill to understand it. That is why I shall make brief reference to the compensation problem that I would have raised, had there been time during the debate on the money resolution.
The problem relates to a firm in my constituency run by Mr. Tim Hannam, which is an important manufacturer and retailer of small arms and weapons. Among other things, it acts as a storage facility for the local police forces in West and North Yorkshire. It is also a manufacturing firm that is engaged in export, retail, wholesale and imports and it has a turnover of about £1.2 million a year.
One of the firm's problems is that it suffers from a substantial debtors' liability: bad debts have begun to accumulate because debts to the firm are chiefly owed by the sorts of gun shops and ranges that specialise in handguns, and their cash flow has suddenly seized up as a result of the Dunblane disaster and the Bill. My constituent's business therefore faces a growing volume of bad debts.
My point for the Home Secretary—one that I might have to make over an extended period, although I hope that that will not be necessary—sis that, in considering amendments to the money resolution or to clause 11, I hope that he will be sensitive to the fact that bad debts become a liability in need of compensation for companies with a big turnover, such as my constituent's. Does the compensation have to be paid to the businesses that owe money to my constituent, which debts my constituent then has to claim from them, or does the fact of the bad debt on my constituent's annual accounts itself justify his being—

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but it seems to me that he is straying into areas where he should not stray. We are considering the timetable motion and he must relate his remarks more closely to that.

Mr. Alison: I feared precisely that rebuke, Madam Deputy Speaker, which is why I was trying to tell my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary that the conundrum of whether compensation for debts will be given directly to the firm that is owed the bad debt or to the business that owes the debt is the sort that could be debated interminably. That is why I am raising the matter in connection with the timetable motion. I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will recognise that that feature will require considerable consideration when we debate clause I, and that he will allow me to put my concern on the record at this point in the proceedings.

Mr. Martin O'Neill: Like the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), my memory of guillotine debates goes back only to 1979. I am not sure whether I have even spoken in one—I have certainly never spoken in favour of a guillotine motion, nor have I voted in favour of one, as I shall do this evening.
There is always some dubiety about whether guillotines are desirable. Speaking as one who has opposed legislation in Committee, I know that there is always the

danger that, under a guillotine, one will have to give up time on matters on which one would like to speak and that Opposition Members will end up having surrendered to the Government the only weapon available to them—the weapon of time—because people filibuster too long on the early parts of a Bill. In some respects, this guillotine is perhaps too generous in some respects, but we have a fair amount of time to consider clause 1, which is the significant part of the Bill.
In response to remarks about panicking and rushing, it must be admitted that there was perhaps a degree of panic after 13 March, but it cannot be said that there was a sense of rushing following Hungerford, which occurred some 10 years ago. It is clear that, had we done our job better in the 1980s and had we been bold and effective enough in our consideration of licensing procedures, we might not have had to debate this Bill today.
It is rich for the opposition to the guillotine to take refuge in their opposition to judicial review. If we look at the sad story of Deputy Chief Constable McMurdo, we find that one of his major concerns was that any appeal or attempt at some form of judicial review would have failed. I speak as a Member of Parliament whose constituency is covered by Central Scotland police and who knows Douglas McMurdo. I feel that he has been made a scapegoat, because he worked within a structure that was not adequate to the requirements of the time.
The Bill is not only about guns but about the licensing of those who hold guns.

Mr. David Mellor: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. O'Neill: Let me take my speech a little further and then I shall give way.
The Bill is about the licensing procedures for the holding of guns. Current legislation is defective and requires our attention.

Mr. Mellor: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity to raise a matter that has puzzled me. Although it was undoubtedly right for Mr. McMurdo to do what he did, why did the matter stop there? Why has the justice of the peace, who, according to Lord Cullen, barely knew Thomas Hamilton, apparently escaped any blame and not felt the necessity to resign from any post?

Mr. O'Neill: I think that the justice of the peace considered that his position differed somewhat from Mr. McMurdo's. There are often occasions on which we, as Members of Parliament, are asked to sign pieces of paper—for example, for people who want passports or documents witnessed—and we do so on the basis that the individual concerned is a constituent with whom we have a nodding acquaintance. We do not always know such people as well as perhaps we should.
That was not the case with Mr. McMurdo, who knew about Hamilton and did not feel confident that the law would back him if he chose to refuse the licence. One can consider that issue, as we shall do in Committee. I hope that the right hon. and learned Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor) will be able to take time from his broadcasting duties to participate in the Committee and discuss the subject at length.


We got it wrong after Hungerford and we now have a chance to make some reparation. I speak unashamedly about the Dunblane connection; a matter of days after the tragedy, the woman who launched the Snowdrop campaign, came to my office asking me how to organise a petition. I said that she should ensure that the words were correct, as Parliament would refuse the petition if they were not, and we got it sorted out. We thought that the petition might attract 5,000 or 10,000 signatures; in the event, it attracted three quarters of a million signatures. It was a simple expression of the country's feeling. People say that it was emotional and that it was done in the heat of the moment, but even in June and July, after the petition had been presented, copies were still being signed. There is still a feeling in the country that something has to be done.
The gun lobby says that, in the main, its members are law-abiding citizens—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I fear that the hon. Gentleman is falling into the same trap as the right hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Alison). He must relate his remarks to the allocation of time, not the issues, important though they are.

Mr. O'Neill: I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I accepted an intervention and was diverted from my course. I accept that speed is of the essence.
Great emphasis has been placed on the international sporting dimension. Future competitors in the Commonwealth games in New Zealand in 1998 are beginning their rigorous and lengthy preparations. The House would not be fair to the sport if it did not make the position crystal clear on opportunities for training and preparation—the individuals involved have to make the correct arrangements. 1 have heard that the measure may stymie competitive handgun shooting—if so, it is a risk that we must take.
Speed is of the essence; we have delayed for too long. It is important that we sort out the arrangements, in relation not just to the type of guns, but—I stress the importance of time in this context—to licensing. As we speak, the police are having to process licences under what we now consider to be defective arrangements. It is essential that we ensure that the police are able to do their job, that sportsmen understand the limitations that the legislation will impose on their activities, that the level of compensation is understood and that people can make the appropriate security arrangements. Those matters must be dealt with urgently, which is why the Opposition are prepared to support the guillotine motion and why there has been a fair degree of consensus nationally that something must be done.
Although the measures do not go as far as the Opposition would have liked, we recognise that the Government are offering us the opportunity to correct something that we should have got right after Hungerford—it is now more than 10 years later and we cannot delay any longer. I therefore support the guillotine motion.

Sir Jerry Wiggin: I find myself in a dilemma over the motion, as I have consistently voted in favour of guillotine motions. I feel strongly that

guillotine motions should be passed automatically as, in my experience, the guillotine process often results in endless wasted hours on both sides of the House in debating clause 1, followed by far too rapid consideration of the Bill's details. I once promoted a guillotine motion on a private Member's Bill, which was unusual.
The Firearms (Amendment) Bill has been introduced in haste. The Firearms Consultative Committee, which was established under the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988 to give expert advice to the Home Office, was not consulted until after the Bill had been published—a negation of the intention behind establishing that committee. There has been no time for consultation with the various interests as represented by the British Shooting Sports Council, of which I have declared my interest as a vice-chairman and former chairman.
I am sad that it is necessary to produce such complex legislation. Even today, we shall learn of the intricacies of the firearms laws, which I fully confess I shall never fully understand. It is better to introduce such measures in consultation with experts, and I am sorry that we will not do so on this occasion. Under the timetable motion, we shall, however, give full consideration to clause 1 today and to other clauses tomorrow. The Bill's Standing Committee stage will be rapid, and I prefer to begin to discuss the matters that concern us.
We are having today's debate because the Government, doubtless with the connivance of the usual channels—I cannot believe that the motion would have appeared on the Order Paper without such connivance—tabled a new sort of guillotine motion. That motion had escaped the eagle gaze of my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling). I am sure that he would prefer to be here today, but he is abroad on NATO business on behalf of the nation and the House. He spotted that the new procedure was to be nodded through and felt that we should not adopt such rules without a proper debate. He therefore, correctly, shouted, "Object," which is why we are now discussing a full guillotine motion.
I am torn between my defence of the opposition to the Bill and my desire to see it properly debated—I would certainly not wish to oppose the motion. My message to those on the Front Benches is not to try that trick again. Other hon. Members should beware when those on both Front Benches connive, as it is usually to the nation's disadvantage.

Mr. Tony Marlow: I can understand why the legislation is now before the House. After the searing, desperate, mind-numbing events of Dunblane, anyone would feel that something should be done urgently and that a solution was vital. But the legislation is no solution: it will not stop a future Hamilton. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) said, the vast majority of crimes carried out with firearms involve firearms that the measure will not ban or illegally held firearms. A potential Thomas Hamilton will continue to acquire weapons—the difference is that, in future, he will acquire them illegally and without the knowledge of—or giving notice to—the authorities.
In my limited experience, there are two circumstances in which the House is asked to introduce a guillotine: either there has been a manifesto commitment on a


measure that is supremely controversial in the House and the Opposition seek to overturn the will of the people as expressed in an election; or the Government are embarrassed. I have never known a Government to be as embarrassed over a measure that they have introduced in the House as this Government are over the Bill.
There are 321 Conservative Members of Parliament. Last week, 215 Conservative Members of Parliament voted for the Bill's Second Reading, which means that 106 Conservative Members voted against Second Reading, abstained or were paired—that would have been a small minority. There was a three-line Whip on a measure that the Government said was urgent and had to be dealt with quickly. In my 17 years in the House, I have not known a rebellion of such strength in the Government party—and the vast majority of Conservatives going through the Lobby on this supremely un-Conservative measure went through holding their political noses.
This is rushed legislation, and if one rushes legislation one is in grave danger of introducing mistaken legislation. This is mistaken legislation. As far as the House is concerned, we are here because we are here because we are here. What should we do? Delay is the enemy of bad legislation, Madam Deputy Speaker, and the only way to delay this legislation is to vote against the guillotine.
I should like to say to my hon. Friends who are Conservatives that we have heard from the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) that, in all his time in Parliament, this uniquely is the only time that the Opposition have sought to support a guillotine motion. Surely that should give them some cause for thought. Those of my right hon. Friends and hon. Friends who support this Government, this wise Government—in most circumstances, quite rightly—should give them the opportunity to think again, to withdraw this legislation, to go out to consultation, to introduce proper legislation, properly digested, that may well achieve some of the ambitions and objectives that the Government seek to achieve through this measure.
We are all privileged to be members of this House, members of this legislature of the United Kingdom. We should be very jealous in our regard as to what this legislature does. We should not pass bad legislation, and the first thing we can do is to block this guillotine and block this measure.
We may or may not do that, but what we do in this House is reflected in the other place, and if we start the struggle on behalf of the Government, on behalf of the House, on behalf of Parliament, against bad legislation, I can assure the House that the other place will follow our example.

Mr. David Wilshire: I will not detain the House for more than a minute or two, because I am conscious that it wants to get on to the substance of the debate.
I share with my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) a distrust of guillotines that have cross-party support. I believe them to be deeply damaging to parliamentary democracy, and I see a very big difference between an opposed guillotine and an unopposed guillotine. I am very nervous of the principle of what we are about to do.
I should far rather have dealt with the main business without a guillotine, waited to see whether there was a filibuster and dealt with it as and when it happened, because I do not believe that there would have been one, and it would have been a better sign to the country that we could dispose of the business without having to use these procedures.
I also agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West that there is more than one way of responding positively to the bereaved parents. As I said on Second Reading, I believe that backing Lord Cullen and his proposals is the right way to proceed. But—and it is a big but—drawing on my experience as a bereaved parent, I believe that taking a speedy final decision one way or the other will be part of the healing process, even if that decision is not the one that the parents want.
I hope very much, therefore, that I shall not damage the reputation of the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) when I say that I agree with what he said. He was right when he said, "Let's take a decision tonight." I wish only that it was without a guillotine, especially one that has the Labour party's support.

Sir Dudley Smith: I shall be extremely brief.
I am of the school of people who believe that guillotines are usually satisfactory for Bills and debates because they ensure greater focus, and on this occasion I believe that the time that is being made available for us is reasonably generous, but I wish to speak because I hope that, under the provisions of the timetable, we shall have the opportunity to debate one or two very important side issues that crucially affect the livelihoods of many people.
Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Alison), I wanted to raise my point on the money resolution, but there was not time for many hon. Members to speak on that. I hope that there will be time to discuss the largest civilian shooting range in the United Kingdom—Wedgnock range at Warwick. Hon. Members probably suppose that the largest shooting range is Bisley, but that is a forces range.
I hope that time will be available during our proceedings, although perhaps not today or tomorrow, to take into account the fact that there is a real danger that that range will have to close because it is extremely reliant on small arms usage by clubs, individuals and organisations. It is part of this country's shooting heritage. It is used by the police and other people. I am advised that there is a very real danger that, once the Bill becomes law, it will go out of existence. I hope that I can leave that point with Ministers.

Mr. Straw: With the leave of the House, Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish to make some closing remarks.
The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) said that there was nothing more tyrannical than an agreed House of Commons, as though that were something that happened almost every day. Whatever other accusation may be made against the Secretary of State, the one that he is a pushover when it comes to agreeing with the Opposition is not one that lies against him—or, I suggest to him, the reverse.


I do not believe that there is anything tyrannical about a House of Commons agreeing on an issue on which it is agreed. The public expect us to agree about a measure such as this. I am glad that there is a substantial measure of agreement between the parties on the need to bring the Bill before the House today and resolve some of its principal parts, and on the need for there to be much increased control of guns, even if there is disagreement about the extent of that control.
The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West made what I considered to be a very intemperate and misplaced remark, comparing the House of Commons to a lynch mob. There may be occasions when that type of metaphor could appropriately be used, but I do not believe that such language is acceptable in a serious debate on gun control in the wake of the terrible circumstances of 13 March.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: Some Conservative Members spoke about delaying tactics. We should emphasise the fact that this is a matter of considerable urgency. I remind my hon. Friend that when the Dublin Parliament, the Dail, enacted the Firearms Act 1971 in response to the increasing troubles in the Six Counties, it did so with similar urgency. That Firearms Act is not altogether unlike the Bill before us.

Mr. Straw: I know that to be true. In the south of Ireland there remains a substantial problem of illegal firearms, but the Dail enacted legislation on legal firearms very swiftly, and no compensation was paid. There was a total ban on all handguns.
The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West asserted that the European convention on human rights challenged our sovereignty. We, as a Parliament, voluntarily agreed to sign the European convention on human rights in, I believe, 1951. The Conservative Government have extended the rights of individuals to petition before the European Court, and at any stage Parliament can decide to withdraw from that convention.
The hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) would have preferred to discuss this business without a guillotine—a widely shared view—but it became clear to both sides of the House that that was unlikely to be possible. We would have had a very disorderly debate on a key issue without a guillotine.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: rose—

Mr. Straw: I am always delighted to give way to the hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman).

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I am two paragraphs behind the hon. Gentleman. I wonder whether he agrees that the European convention on human rights, which was merely signed and never went through the House, would have gone through in quite the way that it did if it had been thoroughly debated. It would have been a little less woolly.

Mr. Straw: I am afraid that I was not in the House in 1951, although the hon. Lady may have been—

[Interruption.] The hon. Lady and I have a special relationship. I bow to her superior knowledge on all occasions. I believe that the convention was debated—

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: No.

Mr. Straw: If the hon. Lady says that it was not, I accept that. However, it would have been open to her or any other hon. Member, at any stage during the past 17 years, to raise the issue of the convention if it was as dreadful an instrument as has been suggested. It would have been open to the Government to propose withdrawal from it: neither circumstance has arisen.
The hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) said that he had never seen a rebellion of such magnitude as apparently occurred on Second Reading of this Bill. On his count, on a three-line Whip 214 Conservative Members voted in favour of Second Reading. His memory must be very short. He may like to know that on Second Reading of the Crime (Sentences) Bill only a week previously, the Home Secretary could muster less than half of the parliamentary Conservative party—just 149 Members—to support his Bill.

Mr. Marlow: rose—

Mr. Straw: I know that the hon. Gentleman is concerned about that, but he should take it up with the Home Secretary.
It is not unheard of—although it is unusual—for the Opposition to support a guillotine motion. We believe that it is appropriate in this case because it is important that the House should now proceed to debate the key issue of whether there should be a total or a partial ban on handguns.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Miss Ann Widdecombe): In accordance with the spirit of the motion, I will make an extremely short speech.
Many important issues were raised that will fall to be addressed when we consider the issues substantively during further stages of the Bill. I want to respond to only two points. First, my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Sir J. Wiggin) suggested that the Firearms Consultative Committee did not have an opportunity to consider our proposals before the Bill was published. In fact, it considered its response to our proposed response on 23 October, before the Bill was published. It gave us advice on that basis. Since then, the committee has considered the Bill on two occasions and we have accepted a number of its suggestions.
Secondly, I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) that it is not true that guillotines are applied only when there has already been substantial or excessive debate. There is nothing unique about proposing a timetable motion before discussion of various stages of a Bill.
We have allocated a generous amount of time. I reject the Opposition's contention that we have acted too slowly.

Mr. Peter Brooke: Having failed to catch the Chair's eye, I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for giving way.


Will she give me an assurance that during the Standing Committee—which will have only a limited amount of time—adequate time will be made available to consider the interests of those who shoot competitively at county and national level and are anxious about the wording of the Bill beyond clause 5?

Miss Widdecombe: Within the time constraints available to us, we will consider all matters that are raised and selected by the Chairman of the Committee for debate. I very much hope that, during the various stages of the Bill, there will be an opportunity to consider the interests of all those who are affected by the Bill, in whatever way.
Before the very helpful intervention by my right hon. Friend the Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke), I rejected the Opposition's contention that we have moved too slowly. This is an important issue that required coherent, sensible and balanced responses from us. I believe that we have now brought those together in this Bill. I recommend the timetable motion to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining proceedings on the Bill:—

COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE HOUSE

1.—The proceedings in Committee of the whole House shall be completed in two allotted days and shall be brought to a conclusion at Ten o'clock on the second of those days.

(2) On the first allotted day—

(a) proceedings on any amendments to Clause No. 1 which may be selected and which would amend that Clause at any place before the words -a small-calibre pistol" at line 16 of page 1 of the Bill shall be brought to a conclusion one hour after the commencement of proceedings on the first such amendment;
(b) proceedings on any amendments to Clause No. 1 which may be selected and which would leave out the words "a small-calibre pistol" at line 16 of page 1 of the Bill shall be brought to a conclusion three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the first such amendment;
(c) proceedings on any other amendments to Clause No. I which may be selected shall be brought to a conclusion one hour after the commencement of proceedings on the first such amendment; and
(d) the remaining proceedings on Clause No. 1 shall be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.

(3) No motion as to the order in which proceedings are to be considered in the Committee shall be made except by a Minister of the Crown and the Question on any such motion shall be put forthwith.

(4) When the Order of the Day is read for the House to resolve itself into a Committee on the Bill, the Speaker shall leave the Chair without putting any Question and the House shall resolve itself into a Committee forthwith whether or not notice of an Instruction to the Committee has been given; and Standing Order No. 64 (Committee of whole House on bill) shall not apply.

(5) Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings to which this paragraph applies on the first allotted day.

(6) Standing Order No. 80 (Business Committee) shall not apply in relation to the proceedings to which this paragraph applies.

STANDING COMMITTEE

2.—(l) The Standing Committee to which the remainder of the Bill is allocated shall report the Bill not later than 28th November.

(2) Proceedings at a sitting of the Standing Committee on 28th November may continue until Ten o'clock whether or not the House is adjourned before that time, and if the House is adjourned before those proceedings have been brought to a conclusion, the Standing Committee shall report the Bill to the House on 29th November.

REPORT

3.—(l) The proceedings on consideration shall be completed in one allotted day and shall be brought to a conclusion at midnight.

(2) Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to those proceedings.

THIRD READING

4.—(1) The proceedings on Third Reading shall be completed in one allotted day and shall be brought to a conclusion three hours after their commencement.

(2) Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to those proceedings.

BUSINESS COMMITTEE

5.—(1) For the purposes of Standing Order No. 80 (Business Committee) this Order shall be taken to allot to the proceedings on consideration of the Bill such part of the allotted day as the Resolution of the Business Committee may determine.

(2) The Business Committee shall report to the House its Resolution as to the proceedings on consideration, not later than the fourth day on which the House sits after the day on which the Chairman of the Standing Committee reports the Bill to the House.

(3) Any Resolution of the Business Committee may be varied by a further Report of the Committee under Standing Order No. 80, whether or not within the time specified in sub-paragraph (2) and whether or not that Resolution has been agreed to by the House.

(4) No Motion shall be made as to the order in which proceedings on consideration are taken, but the Resolutions of the Business Committee may include alterations in that order.

PROCEDURE IN STANDING COMMITTEE

6.—(1) At a sitting of the Standing Committee at which any proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion under a Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee, the Chairman shall not adjourn the Committee under any Order relating to the sittings of the Committee until those proceedings have been brought to a conclusion.

(2) No Motion shall be made in the Standing Committee relating to the sitting of the Committee except by a Minister of the Crown, and the Chairman shall permit a brief explanatory statement from the Member who moves, and from a Member who opposes, the Motion, and shall then put the Question thereon.

(3) No Motion shall be made as to the order in which proceedings are to be considered in the Standing Committee, but the Resolutions of the Business Sub-Committee may include alterations in that order.

REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS IN COMMITTEE

7. On the conclusion of the proceedings in any Committee on the Bill, the Chairman shall report such of the Bill's provisions as were committed (or re-committed) to that Committee to the House without putting any Question.

DILATORY MOTIONS

8. No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of proceedings on, the Bill shall be made in the Standing Committee or on an allotted day except by a Minister of the Crown, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

EXTRA TIME

9. If an allotted day is one to which a Motion for the adjournment


of the House under Standing Order No. 20 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) stands over from an earlier day, paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings on the Bill for a period of time equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

PRIVATE BUSINESS

10. Any private business which has been set down for consideration at Seven o'clock on an allotted day shall, instead of being considered as provided by Standing Orders, be considered at the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill on that day, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the private business for a period of three hours from the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill or, if those proceedings are concluded before Ten o'clock, for a period equal to the time elapsing between Seven o'clock and the conclusion of those proceedings.

PROCEDURE AT TIME FOR CONCLUSION OF PROCEEDINGS

11. For the purpose of bringing to a conclusion any proceedings which are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee or the Business Sub-Committee and which have not previously been brought to a conclusion, the Chairman or the Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others)—

(a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;
(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed (including, in the case of a new Clause or new Schedule which has been read a second time, whether before the time so appointed or in pursuance of paragraph (a), the Question that the Clause or Schedule, or the Clause or Schedule as amended, be added to the Bill);
(c) the Question on any amendment or Motion standing on the Order Paper, whether in the name of a Minister of the Crown or not, which is moved or made by a Minister of the Crown;
(d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded;

and on a motion so made for a new Clause or new Schedule, the Chairman or the Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.

12.—(l) Proceedings under paragraph 11 of this Order shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.

(2) If an allotted day is one on which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) would, apart from this Order, stand over to Seven o'clock—

(a) that Motion shall stand over until the conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion at or before that time;
(b) the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion after that time shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

(3) If an allotted day is one to which a Motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 stands over from an earlier day, the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion on that day shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

SUPPLEMENTAL ORDERS

13.—(l) The proceedings on any Motion made in the House by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order (including anything which might have been the subject of a report of the Business Committee or Business Sub-Committee) shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after they have been commenced.

(2) Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to those proceedings.

(3) If on an allotted day on which any proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before that time no notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.

SAVING

14. Nothing in this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee or Business Sub-Committee shall—

(a) prevent any proceedings to which the Order or Resolution applies from being taken or completed earlier than is required by the Order or Resolution; or
(b) prevent any business (whether on the Bill or not) from being proceeded with on any day after the completion of all such proceedings on the Bill as are to be taken on that day.

RECOMMITTAL

15.—(1) References in this Order to proceedings on consideration or proceedings on Third Reading include references to proceedings at those stages respectively, for, on or in consequence of, recommittal.

(2) On an allotted day no debate shall be permitted on any Motion to recommit the Bill (whether as a whole or otherwise), and the Speaker shall put forthwith any Question necessary to dispose of the Motion, including the Question on any amendment moved to the Question.

INTERPRETATION

16. In this Order—

"allotted day" means any day (other than a Friday) on which the Bill is put down as first Government Order of the Day, provided that a Motion for allotting time to the proceedings on the Bill to be taken on that day either has been agreed on a previous day, or is set down for consideration on that day;

"Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee" means a Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee as agreed to by the Standing Committee;

"the Bill" means the Firearms (Amendment) Bill;

"Resolution of the Business Committee" means a Resolution of the Business Committee as agreed to by the House.

Orders of the Day — Firearms (Amendment) Bill

[Clauses Nos. 1 to 5 and any new Clauses and Schedules appearing on the Order Paper not later than Friday 15th November which relate to the prohibition of small firearms or to further special exemptions from the general prohibition of small firearms.]

Considered in Committee.

[DAME JANET FOOKES in the Chair]

Clause 1

EXTENSION S.5 OF THE FIREARMS ACT 1968 TO PROHIBIT CERTAIN SMALL FIREARMS

Sir Jerry Wiggin: I beg to move amendment No. 5, in page 1, line 15, after `weapon' insert
'(including those powered by carbon dioxide)'.
This is a minor amendment which has long been recommended by the Firearms Consultative Committee. That committee was told some time ago that it could not have this modest concession until there was major legislation. I am very hopeful that my pleas will fall on receptive ears. It is ridiculous that a weapon powered by air pressure can be used without a certificate while an identical weapon powered by carbon dioxide will be confined to section 5. It is so clearly an historical breach of detail that I hope that the Government will accept the amendment.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Miss Ann Widdecombe): There is, indeed, a case for exempting low-powered carbon dioxide handguns from the general prohibition because they are no more dangerous than the low-powered airguns that are currently exempted. Not unnaturally, as the clause is concerned with handguns only, the amendment deals with carbon dioxide handguns and not long-barrelled guns. We intend to table an amendment to ensure that all forms of low-powered carbon dioxide weapons are treated in the same way as low-powered airguns. On the basis of that undertaking, I ask my hon. Friend to withdraw his amendment.

Sir Jerry Wiggin: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sir Jerry Wiggin: I beg to move amendment No. 6, in page 1, line 16, after 'apply', insert
`, a firearm which is incapable of holding more than one cartridge'.

The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Janet Fookes): With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 7, in page 2, line 6, after second `pistol', insert
'which is capable of holding more than one cartridge and'.

Sir Jerry Wiggin: Amendment No. 6 would exclude single-shot pistols from section 5. It covers both .22 and

higher calibres. There are a number of different types, but the guns are few in number. Some would be banned because they fall outside other provisions of the Bill, such as the limitation on length. Among the higher-calibre, single-shot weapons there are perhaps a few hundred in use. These guns do not feature in the Olympic games, but are an important part of the Commonwealth games and all international matches. It is a sport at which Britain excels. We have won 19 medals at the last three Commonwealth games, including seven golds.
At no time did Lord Cullen suggest that a ban on single-shot guns was appropriate. He made a very clear distinction between multi-shot and single-shot guns and made no recommendation for the further control of single-shot guns. Of course, a single-shot gun is an infinitely less lethal weapon than an ordinary shotgun, for example.
Amendment No. 7 alters the definition of small-calibre pistols so that it will exclude only single-shot .22 calibre pistols from the Bill's provisions. I fully accept that if this amendment were to be acceptable, a new paving amendment in subsection 2 would be required at the Report stage.
Fewer than 5 per cent. of .22s are single shot pistols. They are used for Olympic discipline free-pistol shooting, which is the most prestigious—the crème de la crème—Olympic shooting event. The .22 single-shot pistol is used at both the top and the bottom ends of shooting. They are used by elite Olympic shooters, who use carefully honed and expensive guns, and by beginners, who often start out with a single-shot .22.
The question is clear: is a single-shot weapon really so lethal that it should be banned, or are not we going too far in our endeavour to make apparent concessions to public safety? I say "apparent concessions" because the matter was debated at considerable length last week.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Howard): My hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare has summarised the effect of the amendments. They would exempt single-shot pistols from the general prohibition, effectively limiting the ban to multi-shot guns. They would particularly allow single-shot handguns to continue to be kept at home.
I cannot invite hon. Members to support the amendments. The Government believe that there is no place for handguns in the home. As is self-evident, even a single-shot handgun can be used to kill, and they are very easy to carry and to conceal.

Mr. John Redwood: In framing his reply to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare, will my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State go beyond the question of whether such guns should be kept at home to answer the burden of the point made by my hon. Friend—that we would like to keep the Commonwealth games in this country and our competitors to be able to take part in them? Will my right hon. and learned Friend suggest other amendments to the Bill that would enable that to happen in a safe manner?

Mr. Howard: I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare was concentrating more on the Olympic than the Commonwealth games. We do not ban


any of the weapons that are used in Olympic competition. In the Bill, we ban some of the weapons that are used in the Commonwealth games, but they are used in only one of the competitions in those games. All Olympic competitions use .22 calibre weapons, and all but one Commonwealth competition use .22 calibre weapons.
I made the Government's position clear on this matter last week. It is possible for the holder of my office to authorise that element of the Commonwealth games that is not a .22 calibre competition to take place at Manchester. It is true, however, that the Bill's effect would be that no British competitor would be able to practice in this country for that element—it is one element only—of the Commonwealth games. As I explained last week, it is true that that is a consequence of the Bill's provisions.
The purpose of amendment Nos 6 and 7 is to allow people to keep handguns in the home. We do not believe that the public can be given the protection they need and deserve if handguns continue to be kept at home. That is why I invite the Committee to reject them.

Mr. Doug Henderson: In the spirit of this debate, I am pleased to agree with the comments made by the Secretary of State. I also agree that high-calibre single-shot pistols are extremely lethal—as has been demonstrated by evidence presented to many hon. Members over the past few weeks and months. I am sure that such evidence will continue to be produced during the remainder of this week. If one accepts that we must take action to outlaw pistol shooting in shooting clubs, it would be unacceptable to allow the type of exception provided for in amendment No. 6. The type of weapon we are talking about is particularly lethal. It may not be as lethal as the multi-shot pistol, but it has the ability to kill very quickly.
5.45 pm
There is another reason why I hope that the Committee will not accept amendment No. 6. I believe that he and his colleagues are trying to pick apart the Bill. If one examines amendment Nos 6 and 7, and subsequent amendments, one will notice an attempt to exclude various categories of weapons from the provisions of the Bill. The effect would be that the Bill would prohibit only Magnum pistols and perhaps some pistols smaller than .32, which are used for vermin control, and that all others would be acceptable. That would run a coach and horses through the Bill and would not accord with the will of the vast majority of hon. Members.
Although people have a right to enjoy their sport, we should weigh that privilege against the risk that guns will be used as they were in Dunblane. I take part in many sports and on most occasions I support the sporting world and some of its arguments, but I do not believe that one can argue that the rights and privileges of the sportsperson should take precedence over the very real risk to the population. That is why I do not believe that the House should accept amendment No. 6 or some of the other amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Sir J. Wigging).

Sir Patrick Cormack: I do not intend to speak for long, and I do not intend to intervene regularly. I should, however, like to mention one matter.

The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) mentioned the wish of the overwhelming majority of hon. Members. It is quite true that all hon. Members are deeply saddened and appalled by what happened in Dunblane—there is not a cigarette paper of difference between any of us on that—but there is considerable unease, not only on the Conservative Benches but on both sides of the House, about the tone and content of this legislation. I should not like the debate to end without my right hon. and learned Friend being aware that I share that unease.
Rarely is panic legislation good legislation. Although Thomas Hamilton acted in an unspeakable manner with the weapons that he legally possessed, he is—as one of my correspondents said to me this morning—having his revenge in this legislation, which will penalise many law-abiding citizens who have never comtemplated and would never contemplate doing wrong.
Thomas Hamilton could have inflicted equal damage if he had run amok with a motor car. He could have inflicted damage with a variety of weapons and implements, as could any other evil man or madman—and I believe that Thomas Hamilton was the former. It is incumbent on all hon. Members, however great our sympathy for those who have suffered—I hope that no one's sympathy is greater than mine—to realise that we have a duty to try to distance ourselves and to be objective in what we are trying to do and in the legislation that we frame. I do not believe that this legislation will enhance Parliament's reputation, or that it is really serving our country's interests.

Mr. James Couchman: I should like to share with my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary a point made by one of my constituents who shoots regularly, who is an elderly and extremely responsible citizen. He said that the shooting club to which he belongs, which uses .22 weapons, uses the Territorial Army Volunteer Reserve range in Gillingham to enjoy the sport. One of the problems that they foresee is that the TAVR range in Gillingham may not want to have secure storage for their weapons on the premises on which they shoot. That could be a problem across the country. I certainly agree with my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary in his opposition to making exceptions to the secure storage provisions. If many of the shooters who would be allowed to continue their sport with their weapons find themselves precluded because the TAVR, for example, will not allow storage to be constructed, there will be a justifiable outcry. Such people will be deprived of their sport by default rather than by the Bill.

Amendment negatived.

Sir Jerry Wiggin: I beg to move amendment No. 17,in page 1, line 16, after 'apply', insert 'a permitted centre-fire pistol'.

The Second Deputy Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also the following: Amendment No. 19, in page 2, line 7, at end add—
`(1B) In this Act "permitted centre-fire pistol" means a pistol chambered for .32 or smaller centre-fire cartridges and suitable for participation in competitions shot in accordance with the rules of the Union Internationale de Tir.'.
Amendment No. 18, in page 2, line 7, at end add—
(1B) In this Act "permitted centre-fire pistol" means a pistol chambered for .32 or smaller centre-fire cartridges'.
Amendment No. 30, in page 2, line 7, at end add—
'(1B) In this Act "permitted centre-fire pistol" means a pistol chambered for .32 or .38 special or smaller centre-fire cartridges.'.
New clause 7—Centre-fire competition pistols—
The authority of the Secretary of State is not required by virtue of subsection (1) (aba) of section 5 of the 1968 Act for a person to have in his possession, or to purchase or acquire, or to sell or transfer a firearm if he is authorised by a firearm certificate to have in his possession, or to purchase or acquire a pistol chambered for .32 or smaller centre-fire cartridges for use in competitions shot in accordance with the rules of the Union Internationale de Tir.

Sir Jerry Wiggin: In response to the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson), I see the matter from his point of view in so far as later amendments are germane to this debate, and it would have been easier to talk about exceptions once the next question had been resolved. As long as the Labour party remains opposed to all handguns, I expect no sympathy from Opposition Members.
If we are to be allowed to keep any handguns—the reasons can be well argued, and will become apparent in the next debate—it is not unreasonable that we should seek to spread as widely as possible the range of handguns used for international competition purposes, which are very unlikely to be selected even by a maniac, because, being single-shot, they are quite unsuitable for death and destruction. They are suitable for shooting at targets, which is what they are designed to do and what they are used for. The single-shot .22, which we have just been debating, is the type of gun that an individual could manufacture. It is often a labour of love to put together such specialist and highly accurate single-shot guns.
I am sorry that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has seen fit to draw the line where he has. This group of amendments, Miss Fookes, seeks to extend the lower limit to .32 and smaller calibre pistols. Such guns do not use a conventional cartridge of the type that one would expect. They use what are known as wadcutter cartridges, and are generally known as the .32 wadcutters. The name derives from the fact that the cartridge is designed especially to be fired at cardboard. The blunt-nosed bullet does not expand on impact, and cuts a cleaner hole in a cardboard target—like a flying paper punch—making the measurement more accurate.
These pistols are used in the majority of Commonwealth games shooting events, as well as other international competitions. In the previous three Commonwealth games, British competitors won three medals, including one gold, in the .32 centre-fire event. A Briton also won a silver medal in the 1995 Commonwealth shooting championships. I should like to argue with my right hon. and learned Friend about the calibre, muzzle speed and impact of such guns, but, in some respects, that may be an argument against his position on a subsequent amendment.
The fact is that we are talking about low-power, target-shooting handguns that are not designed for killing. They are designed to fire 25 metres, and for competition.

Mr. Henderson: I had a meeting with representatives of the Metropolitan Police, who told me that any gun

could kill anyone. Did the hon. Gentleman taken such background advice into account when framing his comments?

Sir Jerry Wiggin: Of course any gun can kill anyone, and so can any knife. If one pursued that argument, it would be logical to say that there should be no guns at all, but I do not think that the Opposition Front Benchers, even in their wildest moments, have said that.
The amendment is an attempt to define a line which we believe can be reasonably argued, which can be backed by Cullen's report, and which is in Britain's best national interests in shooting competitions. I commend it to the Committee.
I owe you a personal apology, Dame Janet, because I fear that I have been addressing you incorrectly. It was mere forgetfulness, and I hope that you will accept my apology at face value.

The Second Deputy Chairman: That is quite all right, Mr. Wiggin!

Mr. Richard Burden: I was hoping to make an intervention, but the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Sir J. Wiggin) got a little hard of hearing and then sat down. I shall therefore make my point by way of a short speech.
The hon. Member may be surprised to know that I had some sympathy with his previous attempt to exempt single-shot weapons. Secure storage of single-shot handguns may be practicable, but the matter was not pressed to a vote.
The amendment that we are debating deals with exempting pistols that are meant purely for sport. There is a great difference between a pistol that is intended to be used for sporting purposes but which is still capable of rapid fire and which can cause a great deal of damage to or kill or maim many people one after the other, and a sporting pistol used purely for that purpose, which is capable only of a single shot. Certainly it can still kill, but the risk is less. If it were securely stored, it would raise different issues.
Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will later clarify whether this group of amendments would exempt only single-shot pistols, which is the type that he referred to, or whether it would also exempt multi-shot pistols for sporting purposes.

Mr. A. J. Beith: Will the Home Secretary clarify what he said about the Commonwealth games and competitive shooting? He made it clear that, under the Bill as drafted—without this or other amendments—no British competitor could practise for the Commonwealth games. However, unless I misheard him, he seemed to imply that the games could be held with this category of event included. I do not understand how he can base that argument on the Bill as drafted.

Sir Anthony Durant: I am seriously worried about the effect that the Bill might have on our sporting chances at the Olympic and Commonwealth games. People who participate in shooting events take their sport seriously and are reasonable people. Anything we do that damages our chances in this sport should be examined.


I am honoured to be taking over the southern region of the Sports Aid Foundation, which raises money to help young people to participate in sport. I am worried that, if the amendment is rejected, we shall be damaging our nation's sporting interests. I should be grateful if my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary would bear that in mind.

Mr. Rod Richards: I support the amendment, for all the reasons outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Sir J. Wiggin). I voted for the amendment that would have prevented Second Reading. I believe that, despite our feelings about what happened in Dunblane, the House is not capable of legislating against evil.
I want to exemplify my concern at the stance adopted by the Opposition to this group of amendments by drawing attention to on of the many letters that I have received from my constituents—and, indeed, from other people.
6 pm
With your permission, Dame Janet, I should like to quote a passage or two from a letter from my constituent, Gary Tomkins, exemplifying the fundamental conceptual flaw in the Bill. He says:
In 1989 at the age of 22 I had a very severe industrial accident which left me with a damaged spine and a totally paralysed right arm and hand. Before my accident I had been a very active and fit person but could not continue my hobbies. I was a martial arts instructor and had taken part in competitions all over the country. My accident was in February 1989 and I was due to take part in the European championships in Belgium in the May of '89. I had trained hard and was expected to be very highly placed. I also could not continue my football or climbing. A close friend asked if I would like to go to Llandudno Pistol Club with him and I started to go as a probationary member. I became a full member in 1994. It is not an overstatement to say it changed my life. I go three times a week and it is a hobby I have pursued to a very high standard. I have recently been asked to shoot for my country. It is now my one and only hobby that my disability does not affect as it is not a contact sport. Myself and three other members of the pistol club travel all over Britain shooting at different competitions. I hold nine target pistols, five centrefire and four rimfire for shooting all the different disciplines I shoot.
My constituent then writes of his upset at the dreadful events in Dunblane. He says:
After Dunblane I found it hard to shoot but thought 'why not, I have done nothing wrong.' Competition shooting is one of the safest sports and enjoyed by people from all walks of life and all sections of society.
He concludes:
The target shooters I have spoken to on the subject feel that we are being 'tarred with the same brush' as Thomas Hamilton. We do not understand why the sport of Target Shooting is to be practically wiped out because of the actions of one evil individual. It is not possible in any way to legislate against an unsound mind … I am just asking for the right to continue with the sport that I care so much about and which helped me to come to terms with the loss of my other activities.
That letter puts it better than I could. The amendments are sound, and I shall support them.

Mr. Thomas Graham: I can well understand the viewpoint of the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West (Mr. Richards). Not long ago, one of my constituents was shot and murdered with a gun. As far as I am concerned, guns are made to

kill people, and it is time we took them out of the system and out of society to ensure that folk can live in peace and harmony at home, without fear of someone possessing a gun.
I am unequivocally opposed to handguns being kept at home. Many innocent people such as me fear them. It is time that we put ourselves right and stopped these guns being used. I can understand the quest for sport. We all enjoy sport. However, after what we have seen in Dunblane and Hungerford, it is time for the House to act to ensure that no one—and I mean no one—in this country, except representatives of the law and our armed forces, has the right to own pistols. God forgive us if we allow this to continue.

Mr. Bill Walker: I had not intended to speak, but I cannot let what the hon. Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham) has just said go unchallenged. He should realise that a skean-dhu in the hands of a madman is a lethal weapon.
Weapons are lethal only if people intend to use them in an evil way. Our debates should concentrate on the problem. The problem at Dunblane was an evil individual. No amount of legislation will remove evil people from society.

Mr. Henderson: I do not want to labour my comments on these amendments, because I have little to add to what I said on the previous amendments. The hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Sir J. Wiggin) is again seeking to insert a long list of exemptions to make the provisions of the Bill inadequate.
The hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West (Mr. Richards) got to the point of the sports issue. He said that competition shooting was one of the safest sports. Hamilton was a member of two shooting clubs—one in Callender and one in Clyde valley. I am pretty sure that those clubs take part in competitive shooting. We cannot say that competition shooting was safe for the 17 people who died at Dunblane or for their environment. That is the central issue.
As I said on the previous amendments, it is a privilege to take part in sports. Other shooting sports opportunities are available to those who want to take part, including rifle shooting, shotgun shooting for game, and clay pigeon shooting with shotguns. Shooting sports based on pistols have been shown to be dangerous. That is why I hope that the House does not accept the amendments.

Mr. Howard: I begin by associating myself with the apologies of my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Sir J. Wiggin). I earlier fell into the same error as that into which he had fallen, and I apologise.
The amendments would exempt centre-fire handguns from the general prohibition, particularly those of .32 calibre or smaller, with amendment 30 also exempting those of .38 calibre. We have given a great deal of consideration to the distinction between the lower .22 rim-fire calibre and higher calibres, and I cannot invite the Committee to accept the amendments.
It is true that there are serious competitive target shooting events at higher calibres. However, .32 and .38 handguns take conventional centre-fire ammunition. Although, for competition shooting, they may use low-powered ammunition for the purposes of accuracy,


they are equally capable of using much more powerful ammunition. There is no distinction between the power of those guns and that of other high-calibre handguns. Handguns such as pocket pistols chambered for .32 rounds are often used in crime.
In contrast, the power of a .22 calibre rim-fire handgun is limited by the nature of the ammunition that it uses. As the table in paragraph 9.49 of Lord Cullen's report shows, a .22 calibre round is four to six times less powerful than a high-calibre round.
The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) asked about the Commonwealth games. I should make it clear that the amendments would have no impact on the Olympic games, in which pistols of .22 calibre only are used. The amendments would permit exemptions for higher-calibre guns.
The right hon. Gentleman asked how it would be possible for the Commonwealth games to take place with a full complement of events. I understand that one of the five pistol shooting events in the Commonwealth games is for pistols of a higher calibre than .22. The other four events are for .22 calibre guns. I have authority under section 5 of the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1968 to enable that event to take place in Manchester in 2002 if the organisers of the Commonwealth games wish it. Nothing in the Bill would take away that authority.

Mr. Edward Leigh: Will British sportsmen be able to participate in the Commonwealth games using that class of gun?

Mr. Howard: As I have indicated in the past, British competitors will not be able to practise in this country for that event. I believe that the authority I am able to give under section 5 of the 1968 Act would enable people to take part in the competition.
We all listened with great interest to my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, North-West (Mr. Richards), who read out a moving letter from one of his constituents, for whom target shooting was an important part of life. Many of us can sympathise with that constituent's views. Indeed, it is because we believe that it is possible to give the public the protection they need and deserve while allowing those in the position of my hon. Friend's constituent to continue some limited shooting, that the Government have taken their position, and will invite the Committee later this evening to reject amendment No.1.
I entirely accept that, as a result of the Bill, my hon. Friend's constituent will not be able to carry on with all the kinds of shooting in which he presently engages. That is true, but he will be able to continue to shoot .22 pistols. I very much hope that, in that way, he will continue to derive the satisfaction that he currently gets from shooting, which was fully explained in the letter my hon. Friend read out. I believe that the Bill will enable my hon. Friend's constituent and many others like him to continue with their legitimate activity, while giving the public the protection they need and deserve by dealing with higher-calibre guns.

Sir Patrick Cormack: I have a correspondent who is not dissimilar from the one quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, North-West (Mr. Richards). Why

would the public be at greater risk if the two people we are talking about and others like them were allowed to keep their weapons in secure and registered gun club premises? I have always felt that handguns should not be kept at home, but should be kept in clubs. Why would the public be at greater risk if those people, many of them handicapped and unable to use other weapons such as shotguns and rifles, kept their weapons in secure and licensed gun club premises?

Mr. Howard: We will deal with that precise point in due course, because some of the later amendments deal with the generality of higher-calibre weapons. The answer to my hon. Friend's point is that higher-calibre weapons are much more powerful.
I said that, if one looks at the very helpful table at paragraph 9.49 of Lord Cullen's report, one sees clearly that a .22 calibre round is four to six times less powerful than a high-calibre round. Higher-calibre guns are more attractive to criminals and are more often used by criminals. They would make the clubs a much more attractive target for criminals.
I accept that, at the end of the day, there is a difficult matter of judgment. However, there are a number of reasons why we have come to the conclusion that the appropriate place at which to draw the line is the .22 calibre. That enables .22 calibre shooting but not higher calibre shooting to continue.

Dr. John Gilbert: I have a lot of sympathy with the Home Secretary's point. However, I am not clear about his remarks on the Commonwealth games. If I understand him correctly, it would be in order for a British citizen to practise with a larger calibre pistol abroad, but not in this country, and to compete in the games. Will that citizen be allowed to bring the higher-calibre pistol into the country, and what will he do with it when the games are over?

Mr. Howard: Clearly, if I or the holder of my office gives authority in 2002 for that event to take place—I repeat that that is one out of the five shooting events in the Commonwealth games, and that the other four events are .22 events—it will be necessary for arrangements to be made for the guns used in that event to be made available to the competitors. In the course of making those arrangements, which would have to be studied with considerable care in the context of the authority given, it would be possible for those weapons to be made available for the purpose of the competition to all the competitors in that event. That is the answer to the point raised by the right hon. Member for Dudley, East (Dr. Gilbert).

Mr. Leigh: I must press my right hon. and learned Friend on this point. There is a logical absurdity here. Surely my right hon. and learned Friend, with his inquiring and highly intelligent mind, can see that.
We are now saying to British sportsmen that they can use guns but not practise with them. It is like saying to my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Coe) that he can run the 100 metres but that he cannot practise it. The whole thing is absurd, and it got even more absurd when my right hon. and learned Friend answered the right hon. Member for Dudley, East (Dr. Gilbert). Where will the guns be stored? World-class


sportsmen will want to use their own guns. They cannot win at that level with somebody else's gun. The whole thing is absurd. I beg my right hon. and learned Friend to reconsider.

Mr. Howard: I do not accept the premise behind my hon. Friend's question. We have justified our position on the grounds that I have explained. We think that the right place to draw the line is at .22 calibre. We do not think that higher-calibre weapons ought to be permitted in this country.
I have been asked whether, exceptionally, notwithstanding the general position in relation to higher-calibre weapons, if the holder of my office were asked by the organisers of the Manchester Commonwealth games to permit that one event to take place as part of those games in 2002, it would be possible to make arrangements for that. The answer is yes; it would be possible to make arrangements for that event to continue. Of course, that does not lie very easily with the generality of the Bill; I entirely accept that.
It is not the intention that, when the Bill is enacted, higher-calibre weapons should be used. But if it is the desire of the organisers of the Commonwealth games, on that one occasion and for that one event, for special arrangements to be made, special arrangements could be made, as I have explained to the right hon. Member for Dudley, East and my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh).
I have sought to explain to the Committee the reasons why I do not believe that the amendments should be accepted. They would allow higher-calibre weapons to be available and to be used. Although, as I have said, it is true that higher-calibre weapons have a competitive use, they are capable of using much more powerful ammunition, and they are indistinguishable from .32 handguns, which are frequently used in crime. For those reasons, I invite the Committee to reject the amendments.

Sir Jerry Wiggin: I am not an expert on the .32 wadcutter, but I understand that there are a number of competition weapons that are chambered precisely and only for a type of ammunition that is, in effect, a disc for marking a target. No criminal with any skill would contemplate the use of such a weapon or such a bullet—if I can call it that, because it is not a bullet—for criminal purposes.
The advice that my hon. and learned Friend has received on velocity and so on is incorrect. Many higher-calibre weapons have a smaller net power than some .22s. I should like to go into the matter in greater detail, perhaps in correspondence.

Mr. Graham: My sister-in-law has been held up in a shop five or six times in her life. What happened was that a guy came in and held a gun at her. Does the hon. Gentleman think that my sister-in-law asked, "Is that a .22?" Does he think that the criminal cared? For goodness' sake!

Sir Jerry Wiggin: The hon. Gentleman is making the mistake of confusing legally held guns with illegally held guns. There is nothing in favour of illegal weapons. We

condemn illegal weapons as much as anyone. I doubt that the person who held up the hon. Gentleman's sister-in-law was carrying a legally held firearm.
I shall seek to put my right hon. and learned Friend right on the technical points. I shall not press the amendment to a vote tonight, in the hope that, if we can produce the necessary technical evidence, he will give the matter further consideration. We are talking only about target shooting, and I believe that we can allay many of his fears. Therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 16, leave out 'a small-calibre pistol'.

The Second Deputy Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also the following: No. 15, in page 1, line 16, leave out 'small-calibre pistol' and insert
`firearm which can be dismantled'.
No. 2, in page 2, line 4, leave out subsection (6).
No. 16, in page 2, line 6, leave out from 'Act' to end of line 7 and insert
firearm which can be dismantled" means a firearm which may be readily dismantled into at least two separate components in such a way as to disable it from being fired.'.

Mr. Hughes: I greatly admire the way in which the issue has been handled. Ever since the Dunblane shooting, the Government and Opposition parties have worked together and treated the subject as a non-party matter on which the House of Commons could not legislate in a hurry. Lord Cullen did a remarkable job. One of his most important recommendations was to impose a timetable on the House that included time to reflect. As the debate progressed and the issues unfolded, the Government made the right decision to consider the recommendations in the Cullen report and propose what action the House should take. It is a matter for the House of Commons to decide public policy and not for a judge, no matter how eminent he may be.
The difference between myself, the Opposition and the Government is relatively small. The Government consider that it is safe to allow .22 or smaller calibre weapons to be kept in gun clubs and that all other handguns should be banned. What is the basis for that judgment? Why do the Government believe that there is a difference between .22 handguns and larger weapons?
My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has advanced two arguments. First, he said that he did not wish to disrupt Olympic sport. That is a logical contention, but I wonder how much water it holds when we have been told by the shooting lobby that most of the sport will be destroyed, as will Britain's participation in some of the competitions in the Commonwealth games. If the Government are prepared to take the matter that far—and they are right to do so—the next logical step would be to ban .22 handguns as well.
Secondly, my right hon. and learned Friend claims that, if larger handguns are held in gun clubs under the new stringent conditions, gun clubs will become a more attractive target for criminals. If .22 handguns are the only guns being held in gun clubs, surely they will be a target


for criminals. As the hon. Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham) said, when his sister-in-law was held up, she did not know what calibre of gun was being used.
I have also had a gun pointed at me in Beirut by a very insistent man who wanted me to hand over a videotape. I said, "Take as many videotapes as you like." I did not stop to ask him what calibre gun he was carrying. Therefore, those two arguments do not stand up.
There is a third possible argument: presumably, there is a significant difference between the effect of .22 pistols and that of larger handguns. I have taken advice from experts on guns. They do not necessarily agree with me, but agreed to assist the debate. They tell me that the shock of being hit by a bullet from a .22 gun is considerably less and that many more bullets would have to be pumped into someone to cause death. I understand that, but a .22 weapon can still be lethal, as the Cullen report tells us. The umbrella organisation for the shooters tells us that a .22 gun can be just as lethal as a larger weapon and that in some circumstances it can be more dangerous because it is quicker to change magazines on a smaller handgun.
The Government assert that their restrictions will be enough to ensure that .22 weapons never get into general circulation. However, in the Cullen report the umbrella organisation for the shooters stated its view that no system of certification or regulation can be foolproof. In other words, no system will stop someone saying that he is going to a target shooting competition, taking his guns out and doing whatever he wants with them.
Smaller handguns are used to commit many atrocities. They are the chosen weapon of Mossad, the Special Air Services and the professional assassins. Robert Kennedy and Yitzhak Rabin were killed with .22 weapons and Ronald Reagan was nearly killed with one. The Evening Standard reported that last night
A mother found her four children shot dead in their beds in North Carolina with a .22-calibre handgun, the type of weapon that the Government is refusing to ban".

Mr. Terry Dicks: My hon. Friend has tried to apply logic to the Government's policy, and that was an error. Is it not true that the policy was cobbled together simply to keep the Cabinet intact? That is why it is so illogical and cannot be explained in a way that the average man in the street can understand.

Mr. Hughes: I am in favour of keeping the Cabinet together and I hope that it will continue to govern us after the general election. In good government, any decision is a matter of compromise. I was coming to my hon. Friend's point.

Mr. Richards: My hon. Friend makes great issue of the difference between the effectiveness of a .22 handgun and that of a higher-calibre weapon. If a Member on the Opposition Front Bench were to shoot at my hon. Friend with a .22 handgun, it would be something of a fluke were he to be killed. However, if a Member on the Opposition Front Bench were to fire at him with a 9 mm Browning, my hon. Friend would end up on the same Bench as me—much further back.

Mr. Hughes: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, but I was referring to people who hone their skills in gun clubs

and know the effect of the guns. Someone armed with a .22 weapon who is intent on committing an atrocity will know exactly how close he must be to his victims. Therefore, a tragedy such as Dunblane could happen again.
I have already stated my view that there should be a free vote on the issue, because of my stance and that of other hon. Members, particularly my hon. Friends. Otherwise, can there be any logic in the Government having taken a non-political approach to the issue?

Mr. Bill Walker: It was not the Government, but the Opposition, who made the issue political.

Mr. Hughes: I absolutely reject that contention. Those arguments are used merely to slur the good names of the people who run the Snowdrop campaign, who have not tried to make it a political issue.
The judgment on whether there should be a three-line Whip is wrong. I think that it is wrong because, plainly, from the beginning, all the signals from the Government were that the issue was non-party political. Members of Parliament were therefore entitled—indeed, in my judgment, had a duty—to find out the facts, talk to the shooting fraternity and those people who wanted to ban handguns, visit gun clubs, as I and I am sure many hon. Members did, and make up their own minds on how they should vote on the issue when it eventually came to the Floor of the House. That is what I did, and that is why I take the view that I do.
In this and other debates, it has become normal courtesy for people, whatever their view, especially those who do not want to ban any handguns, to say how much sympathy they have for the parents of the Dunblane children and the husband of Gwen Mayor. I do not believe that I have any more or any less sympathy than anybody else. In fact, I think that the words are used not to express sympathy but to excuse the way in which those people are thinking and say that the people who were involved in Dunblane and the people who lost relatives are perhaps over-emotional; although we should listen to what they say, we have to understand that perhaps they are not being as balanced as they should be.
I reject that view entirely. That is not the view of the people of Dunblane. They have looked at the issues. They do not think that their relatives can be brought back, but they recognise that if we leave handguns in the hands of private citizens, as, regrettably, the Government's proposals would, we run the risk that once again a tragedy could be caused by legally held weapons. I think that the House should recognise that that is so and not have a further atrocity or the possibility of one on its conscience.

Mr. George Robertson: I congratulate the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) on his speech, on his courage in following his judgment and his conscience and on resisting whatever strong-arm tactics have been used by his party managers. That stands well for him.
This debate involves a moment of critical decision for the House of Commons.

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: For the sake of clarity, I ought to say that there have been no strong-arm tactics employed by the Whips or by my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench. They have been extremely courteous and logical in their approach to me.

Mr. Howard: The hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) should withdraw his comment.

Mr. Robertson: Of course I withdraw the comment. The hon. Member for Harrow, West was a Whip, and if he says that there has been no pressure put on hon. Members, that is good. I hope, therefore, that what I am going to say will be all the more relevant for that.
In paragraph 1.13 of his report, Lord Cullen said:
I point out that the ultimate decision raises a number of matters of policy which are peculiarly for the Government and Parliament to decide. For that reason I direct my recommendation to what should be considered.
This evening, the House of Commons has to make its own decision; it has to come to its own judgment. I hope that if there is no restraint—that what the hon. Member for Harrow, West says, to which the Government Front-Bench team nods animatedly, is correct—Conservative Members will suffer no penalty if, having listened to the debate, they come to a different conclusion from the one that, as has been indicated to the press, the Government have drawn.
In many ways, Parliament itself is on trial tonight. If we were to leave a loophole in the firearms law big enough for another mass murderer, another Michael Ryan or Thomas Hamilton, to walk through, we would never be forgiven or deserve to be forgiven by the populace. Today, in another continent, another country, another culture—America—four children were shot dead by their father using a .22 weapon. The children died, and they make a horrifying point for us at the beginning of this debate.
I suggest that we should start by being brutally truthful with ourselves. I ask hon. Members this question: if a mad, crazed, suicidal gunman with 743 rounds of ammunition had come into the Chamber, killed 17 Members of Parliament and gravely injured 15 others and then shot himself within a matter of minutes, would we have waited eight months to discuss a partial ban on the very instrument that killed so many legislators of this land? No; whatever the Home Secretary says, the answer to that is known in the House of Commons and outside.

Sir Michael Marshall: I understand the hon. Gentleman's argument, but he is realistic and must surely accept that there is no way in which we can close all loopholes. We would have to ban all guns. The sawn-off shotgun has been seen over the years as the criminal's friend. Surely the hon. Gentleman should give up the idea that we can close all loopholes against lunacy.

Mr. Robertson: I hesitate before calling the hon. Gentleman complacent, but I have to make the point to him that Thomas Hamilton and Michael Ryan were in a category of killers who took the lives of more people than the total of practically all other homicides in the country in a year, and did so using legally held handguns. If a 100 per cent. ban had been in place and the loophole closed, neither of them would have been able to de what

they did. A balance of risks is involved. The Government have gone beyond the Cullen recommendation because they believe that the balance of risks determined it. I am suggesting that the Government's limit of 80 per cent. is not enough and that we should simply close the loophole by a 100 per cent. ban.

Mr. Howard: A few moments ago, the hon. Gentleman made an absolutely outrageous suggestion, which demeans him and the House of Commons. I want to give him the opportunity to withdraw it. He alleged that, if what had happened at Dunblane had happened in this House, we would not have waited eight months before legislating. Did not the shadow Home Secretary, his hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), and the whole Labour party accept from the outset that the right course would be to set up the Cullen inquiry, wait for its report and then legislate speedily in response to that report, which is precisely what the Government have done? Will the hon. Gentleman now withdraw his outrageous remark?

Mr. Robertson: If the right hon. and learned Gentleman would listen to me, he would realise that I am not accusing him. I am taking responsibility for all of us. Yes, of course, we waited eight months; we waited for Cullen to respond. I am questioning whether, if such an incident had happened in Parliament, we would still be talking about a partial ban on the guns. What if the instrument of death used at Dunblane primary school on 13 March had been a .22 weapon? What if it had been a Revolter .22 with eight-shot magazines? Would we still be considering a partial ban on the weapon that caused that atrocity or could have caused an atrocity in this House? I think that we know the obvious answer.

Mr. Richards: rose—

Mr. Robertson: Many hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-East (Mr. Richards), have asked whether, somehow, the .22 is different from the .32 or the Magnums that some people have at present. Eileen Harrild was the gym teacher at Dunblane primary school. She is in the House of Commons and what she has said today should be a salutary reminder to all of us. She did not know whether Thomas Hamilton had a 9 mm Browning or a .22 weapon in that gymnasium. All she knew was that he killed with it.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Forsyth): I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman meant to say what he did to the Committee, but it is quite important that he puts the position on the record. Surely he is not for a moment suggesting that the reaction of the House of Commons to the murder of 16 children and their teacher would be any different if a crime had been committed in the House involving 17 Members of Parliament. Surely the House would react to such an atrocity, wherever it happened, in the same way, by looking at the facts and forming a balanced and proper response. It is important that the hon. Gentleman should make that clear.

Mr. Robertson: The right hon. Gentleman and I have stood side by side during the whole episode and I do not regret that for a moment, but we have arrived at a different


conclusion at this stage and that is the point that I make solemnly and seriously to the Committee. After all that time, all that consideration and all the evidence that has been collected, it is not right that we should concern ourselves with a partial ban on that sort of weapon. If the events had been closer to the House, the partialness of the ban would be the issue, as it is today.
The decision is a matter of judgment. We saw so much on that day and we have seen so much since then, but we see a difference of judgment before the Committee tonight. The amendment on which we will vote is not in the name of the Labour party; it is first in the name of three right hon. and hon. Conservative Members and it has support across the Committee. The point has been made repeatedly, but why will the Government not allow—

Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that we have stood side by side on this issue, and I am grateful for the way in which he has done that, but it is important that he should make it clear that the House of Commons is not treating the events of Dunblane any less seriously than it would treat the events had they taken place in the House. That is what he appeared to say and it is important that he should make it clear that the House of Commons is treating the events of Dunblane as seriously as if they had happened anywhere else. We may disagree on the appropriate response, but it is wrong to suggest that the response would have been different if those events had happened here in Westminster and not in my constituency.

Mr. Robertson: I make the point to the right hon. Gentleman that the issue is a question of judgment, and I am not the only one who makes that suggestion. Yes, we decided collectively that the Cullen inquiry would be set up and that we would wait to see the results before we came to a considered conclusion, but there is now a serious difference between us. It is a small difference, but it is a fundamental. I do not personally believe that, had the events taken place here or had the gun that was used in Dunblane primary school been a .22 weapon, we would now be considering a partial ban that would continue to allow 20,000 .22 calibre pistols, half of them semi-automatic, to remain in legal circulation. That is my judgment and I believe it is shared by many other hon. Members.

Mr. Richards: rose—

Mr. Dicks: rose—

Mr. Robertson: I shall give way to the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks).

Mr. Dicks: At the time the hon. Gentleman, my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition went to Dunblane, soon after the tragedy, the implication was—I may be wrong—that everybody would do all that could be done to ensure that such events would not happen again. I am disappointed that that has not happened and that is why we have a partial ban and not the complete ban that the hon. Gentleman and I want.

Mr. Robertson: In the ideal world, we would all have followed the same route together and we would have

come to exactly the same conclusions, but we do not live in an ideal world. The hon. Gentleman's party is not ideal, because his colleagues do not agree with his courageous view. There is an honest difference of opinion and the House of Commons has an opportunity to consider what action will be taken.

Mr. Richards: rose—

Mr. Robertson: This is a brief debate and I have to make some progress. I have given way generously up to now and I may come to the hon. Gentleman later.
The issue before us is that guns kill and handguns kill more easily, more quickly and with devastating effect. The .22 guns are as lethal as the higher-calibre guns that will be outlawed here tonight. I say in all seriousness—this is not a political point—that there is genuine dismay and concern in the country that there is a whipped vote on one side of the Committee but a free vote on the other. It is right to ask again and again how the Government can announce only some eight days ago that they will allow a free vote on an issue such as corporal punishment in English schools, but can maintain that it is unreasonable that Tory Members of Parliament should be allowed to follow their consciences this evening on this, of all important issues.
Over the past 17 years, the Government have allowed free votes on Sunday trading and abortion and will now allow one on caning. Of course, we always allow a free vote on Members' pay, but we are told—perhaps because the Government believe that the vote might go against them tonight—that Tory Members of Parliament are to bury their consciences and follow the considered line of the Government. It is a sad and dismal commentary on the Government's sense of priorities that they have chosen to give no discretion to Conservative Members, and I congratulate those who have chosen to break ranks.
6.45 pm
The President of the Board of Trade was on "Any Questions" last Friday night with my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mrs. Liddell). The question why there would be no free vote was posed by a puzzled audience in Troon and the right hon. Gentleman said that it was traditional that free votes be allowed when great life issues were to be determined; he quoted abortion and capital punishment. If leaving a loophole in handgun law that allows 20,000 .22 pistols to be kept—half of which are semi-automatics—is not a great life issue, the right hon. Gentleman should go to the cemeteries of Dunblane and Hungerford and ask himself the question again.
I plead with Conservative Members and hon. Gentlemen in other parties to consider tonight the effectiveness and the security of the law that we are about to enact over the next couple of months. I hope that they will let their judgment, and not that of the Whips, determine the way in which they will vote. The debate is about more than just the technicalities of gun clubs, the disassembly of weapons, the transport regulations between clubs or even the quantum of compensation. It is a defining moment for what sort of society we want today. Is there a gun culture in this country? Should we be worried about a gun culture developing? Lord Cullen, in paragraph 9.44, said that high-calibre guns


are not target guns in the true and original sense, but courses … have been evolved for them which make use of their greater power and other characteristics, as well as calling for agility and quick thinking on the part of the shooter. This has led to the growth of combat shooting. It has led some shooters to don the trappings of combat, such as holsters and camouflage clothing. It has caused others"—
I emphasise this point—
to feel uneasy about what appears to be the use of guns as symbols of personal power.
Those are chilling words from Lord Cullen. He is not just talking about Magnums and 9 mm Brownings, but about the handgun culture that seems to be growing and that disturbs many people who are involved in legitimate shooting sports. Those words should resonate with all of us.
A gentleman from Elstree in Hertfordshire sent me a copy of a letter that he had sent to the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington last week. Although the hon. Gentleman may not have noticed the letter, I took time to read what is an angry arid almost incoherent letter from Mr. David M. Proctor, the owner of the Elstree forge, which supplies
quality forged ironwork to customer's requirements".
Mr. Proctor is a member of the shooting lobby and his letter is filled with dots and exclamation marks. We all know about such letters. He says:
However … we had to deal it and not take our spite and pity out on the rest of the nation or … a selected minority. If you are looking for blame … Thomas Hamilton is first in line … !! Second in line is the issuing authority for his gun license. Third in line are the people of Dunblane for not co-operating with the police to bring the 'bastard' to trial … before he went wild, instead of pelting him with eggs, flour etc, and taunting him.!!!!! Talk about kicking a dog and 'not' expecting it to bite!!.
Mr. Proctor continues:
You would like a 'TOTAL' ban on handguns (pistols) … ??? fair enough … this is your view and opinion. For my part … pistol shooting is now 'dead' in the water … so … to mess about with a .22 cal rimfire … is of no interest to me, although I do own a .22 cal pistol as well as 9 mm etc. to 'just' shoot .22 is to as 'just' eat carrots and peas and nothing else … !! sorry … not interested … But … why then are you going to allow me to keep at home my .22 cal self-loading multi-shot … rapid fire rifle … ??? I can kill you just as easily with that, indeed, I could set myself up and 'snipe' you from a safe distance with it … !!!
That is a licensed holder of three handguns and one .22 rifle offering his considered view to a Member of Parliament who chooses to support the amendment.

Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman has treated the Committee to two quotations, the second from a letter that was based on the assumption that .22 guns could be kept at home. Does he realise that no .22 handgun—or any other handgun—can be kept at home under the Government's proposals?
More important, the hon. Gentleman read out most of a paragraph from Lord Cullen's report, in which he talked about handgun shooting assuming the trappings of power. Does he concede that the first sentence of that paragraph reads as follows:
Over the last 20 years there has been a considerable expansion in the use of larger calibre and high capacity handguns"?
The paragraph that he read to the Committee was not about .22 handguns but about the handguns that the Government are proposing to ban. Why was he trying to mislead the Committee by quoting that paragraph?

Mr. Robertson: I do not know whether the Home Secretary breaches the rules of order, nor do I care, but I

think that he underestimates the degree to which people are worried about the gun culture. Of course the rise of the high-calibre handgun has led to certain things, but is he telling us that he does not believe that people will trade down to other weapons of death? I have shown him a brochure that I received from the secretary of the Clyde Valley pistol club, who came to lobby me and spoke against the Bill. One weapon in that brochure can be used with an eight-shot magazine. The gun culture, if it exists, will not stop because we take out some of the larger-calibre weapons.
The Home Secretary said that I read out the letter in the context of weapons at home. The gentleman who wrote this amazing letter—the third piece of correspondence that I have received from him—will still have his .22 rifle at home, a weapon that he is using to make an almost explicit threat to a Conservative Member of Parliament. Until the Bill becomes law, that man will continue to have his two 9 mm Browning weapons and his .22 pistol in his home. I state that not as a debating point, but because we must deal with what is going on in this country.

Mr. Richards: In his remarks a few moments ago, the hon. Gentleman made the highly offensive comment that hon. Members might somehow regard themselves as being more important or worthy than the children killed at Dunblane. Will he withdraw that remark?

Mr. Robertson: I do not see why the hon. Gentleman wishes to get away from the issues to which other hon. Members want to move.
Handguns are special. The Government have conceded that, as has Lord Cullen. Because they accept that point, the Government have gone beyond Lord Cullen's recommendations. The critical issue today is whether we can make our society safer simply by banning the higher-calibre guns, or whether it remains unsafe, for exactly the same reasons that the Government have put forward, to leave 20,000 .22 guns—the figure at the moment, but there is a potential for even more if the compensation is used to trade down—in legal circulation.

Sir Jerry Wiggin: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Robertson: No, I am coming to the end of my remarks. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman hopes to catch your eye, Sir Geoffrey.
Thomas Hamilton took 473 rounds to Dunblane primary school on 13 March. He shot 106 bullets, causing 58 wounds of which no less than 26 would have been individually fatal. He killed 17 human beings—16 of them tiny children, the other being their dedicated teacher—and he then killed himself. He did all that within three minutes of unimaginable horror. This was not a random slaughter; this was not a madman picking up for the first time a killing instrument and spraying out shots with it. This was a creature of real evil who used the skills that he gained at the gun clubs. He was the model of what Lord Cullen said was the unease that we now express about those in the combat and gun cultures.
Those children and Gwen Mayor were not killed or murdered, but were executed in an orgy of directed and precise violence by a suicidal maniac using the only instruments—rapid-fire pistols—that could have done the


deed in that time, and simultaneously ended his own life. There could be no discrimination between the methods and the weapons that he used on that day, and we should not allow ourselves to place an artificial distinction between one set of these instruments of death and another set that we are prepared to continue in legitimate use.
A full ban on handguns will prevent another of these atrocities—which have happened twice within the last 10 years in our country—at the hands of maniacs using legally held guns. A full ban, as the Police Federation and the Police Superintendents Association of England and Wales have said, will be the only administrative means of implementing a policy of minimised risk in this area. A full ban is what the Committee should be voting on if we are serious about minimising the risks that face us.
There were snowdrops growing in Dunblane on that awful day in March this year. That is why the grassroots campaign—with hardly any money, but with conviction and common-sense arguments on its side—set out to make sure that no similar tragedy could affect any other small community in this country. The snowdrops will be back in bloom in March next year and the memories, which are still so fresh to so many people, will flood back to remind us and the world of what happened so close to us.
We must make the balance between a sport and whether it continues to exist, and human life and public safety. If we leave loopholes that we could have closed, if we maintain a risk that we could have avoided, if we have not done all that we could have done to prevent another atrocity, if we make a mistake, if we compromise here in this Parliament, others will pay the price. Are we capable of living with that responsibility?

Mr. David Mellor: I am grateful for the opportunity to participate in this important debate. During the Second Reading debate, I felt an emotion about my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary that I never thought I would feel in the context of this matter—I felt sorry for him, as he found himself assailed from both sides of the argument. Having regard to the strength of feeling among some of my hon. Friends that the measure that he proposes goes too far, it is only right, before I suggest that he should certainly go further, to recognise that if, as I hope, the measure proceeds to the statute book—with or without this amendment—largely unamended by others, it will be a significant step forward in enhancing public safety and ridding Britain of the danger of falling victim to a gun culture as part of our ready importation of American values into our way of life.
I deeply regret that, for the first time in 17 years—perhaps it shows what a craven, snivelling thing I have been for most of my career in the House—I shall vote against my party on a three-line Whip. It is fair to say that no Whip has approached me. I wish I could add for colour that some huge effort had been made to persuade me to change my mind, but the Whips Office has treated the matter as one of complete indifference. Nevertheless, I resent the fact that I am being offered a free vote in a couple of weeks on the vital question of whether little Johnny should be spanked for sticking his tongue out at teacher, while I am not being offered a free vote on what is literally a matter of life and death. I do not see the logic of that and, with the greatest of respect to those who

decide these matters, I do not see the benefit to the Government. If they win tonight—maybe they will—it will be said that they did so only because they imposed a three-line Whip. They will be seen to have won the vote but lost the argument—a pyrrhic victory indeed.
7 pm
The outstanding and deeply moving occasion when the two party leaders, accompanied by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and his opposite number, the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson), appeared at Dunblane was a proper sign of solidarity by the political system to mark what we all know will be a lasting stain on the history of this nation: the slaughter of 16 innocents and a teacher in Dunblane by someone whom we collectively—society—permitted to be the holder of licensed handguns. Before we hear too many other references to the unquestionably serious, but separate, issue of illegal firearms, I remind the House that Lord Cullen found as a fact that it was profoundly unlikely that Hamilton would have obtained a weapon from the illegal market had we prevented him from having a legal firearm.
Against that background, I do not understand what is so precious about the compromise that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, with his typical eloquence and attractive imperviousness to any contrary opinion—the latter is a great asset in a lawyer, but a more questionable one in a politician—is suggesting with his customary vigour. This is not a carefully considered decision by the Government, but a decision forced on them by legitimate debate within their ranks between those such as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, who no doubt took one view, and those who took another. The compromise does not reflect the views of Lord Cullen.
At least I agree with the Government that, whatever the merits of asking Lord Cullen to do something, the policy on handguns is nothing to do with the judge. Indeed, there was no spectacle more ridiculous than the Government, having accused hon. Members such as me of knee-jerk reactions when we called for changes to be made, scuttling off to brief the press that they would not accept Lord Cullen's remarks unless they went in a certain direction, and before he had even delivered the report. If I were Lord Cullen, I would feel slightly ill used.

Sir Mark Lennox-Boyd: Does my right hon. and learned Friend think that it was wrong to appoint Lord Cullen to conduct the inquiry?

Mr. Mellor: Yes, and I have said so from day one, as my hon. Friend would have known had he been active in the debate. That is my view and it may be eccentric, but it is one that I hold strongly. Judges are there to deal with the law and politicians and Members of Parliament are there to make policy. Otherwise, why bother to have a Government at all? Let us have a standing committee of the judiciary to tell us how to deal with such complex issues. Sometimes I think that they could have it, and damn good riddance to them, frankly.
The Government compromise is not some carefully selected piece of ground, but a piece to which they have been dragged by the pressure of events. I find it difficult to know why they are so attached to a compromise that


has no merit beyond the undoubted skill with which it has managed to alienate almost every party to the debate. It is extraordinary that the people who have said how unworkable and hopeless are the Government's propositions are the very people whom the Government are striving officiously to save from the ineptitude of their campaigning—the gun lobby. Why be more Catholic than the Pope on this issue? I am in some doubt as to why that should be the case.
I should have thought it self-evident that Lord Cullen—whose use in considering the evidence is in quite a different quarter from the question whether he can help us on issues of policy—points in paragraphs 9.42 and 9.43 to the deadly nature of the .22, particularly rapid-action .22s. I have seen the advertisements that the hon. Member for Hamilton cited. As a consequence of the Government's proposals, people will trade down to .22s and the evidence clearly shows that rapid-fire .22s are capable of inflicting just as much damage as Thomas Hamilton inflicted with an altogether more powerful pistol.

Mr. Leigh: My right hon. and learned Friend and I are on opposite sides on this question, but we may agree on this point. Does he accept that the compromise is rather disingenuous because it conveys the impression that sportsmen will continue to be able to use .22 pistols in large numbers, but by the Government's own admission most gun clubs will be closed down, so there will not be 20,000 guns in circulation anyway?

Mr. Mellor: I would be more reassured about the Government's proposals if I thought that that was likely to be the case, but I think it most unlikely. Some of the people who are engaged with such single-minded intensity in these activities, as some people are, will carry on. They will simply modify the weapons they use, and they will use the compensation, which I accept that they should be offered, to trade down. Before we know it, the 20 per cent. of handguns that remain will swell and we will not have struck a blow to the heart of handgun culture in our society, as I want us to do.

Mr. Elliot Morley: Is not the crux of the argument the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) about the balance of risk or risk assessment? I began by supporting the Government in the sense that I thought that retaining .22s would pose a low risk. The people in the gun lobby who have contacted me have persuaded me about the dangers of .22s. If the logic is that, for the public good, handguns should be banned, the same logic must apply to .22 handguns or to none at all.

Mr. Mellor: I agree. I cannot think why on earth the Government are so desperate to save some of these people from themselves.
The point that emerges with complete clarity from paragraph 9.44 of Lord Cullen's report, which the hon. Member for Hamilton quoted, is that the quiet British sport of target shooting has in recent years been infiltrated by people who shoot for reasons quite different from a desire to participate in the Olympic games. One of the lamentable side effects of the culture of violence spread by American entertainment in this country is some people's desire to play some part in the activities depicted on screen in their fantasies. Why else should people feel

the need to dress up in combat clothing and, instead of shooting at a boring old circle on a target a long distance away, shoot at human forms using combat ammunition?
Of course the overwhelming majority of people who hold licences are to be trusted and would never do what Thomas Hamilton did, but we must ask ourselves how we are to weed out those who are playing a part in a traditional British sport and those who possess their guns as some sort of boost to a fragile ego and who are acting out some bizarre fantasy, whether at their gun club or in their home.

Mr. Denis MacShane: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Mr. Mellor: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will bear with me so that I can develop this point and then I will be finished. To my mind, although only perhaps to mine, this is the heart of the matter—others may not agree.
I was initially attracted to the idea, and I would be prepared to accept drawing a line at .22 weapons, if I thought that the system of vetting, which at present rejects 0.5 per cent. of applicants—when is a vetting system not a vetting system? When it lets 99.5 per cent. through—could ensure that the wrong 'uns were weeded out; but I doubt that.
The doctors have discovered the truth. The Home Affairs Select Committee, in a last desperate attempt to get the gun lobby off the hook, suggested that doctors should be wheeled in to certify people as fit; the doctors knew that they were being handed a poisoned chalice and would have none of it, so they voted against it. One of the principal mechanisms that, it was being suggested, would have obviated the need to ban a further category of weapons, went out of the window because professional people cannot be forced to do a job against their will.
I mentioned earlier the justice of the peace who hardly knew Hamilton but signed his certificate not once but twice. He gave a lengthy explanation to the Cullen inquiry, saying that he felt that it was his public duty to sign the application. Frankly, I am amazed that more attention has not focused on his role. If it was right for the assistant chief constable to resign, I can hardly feel reassured by the fact that that gentleman is still sitting on the Bench.
If we legislate to protect handguns, and if we accept that the number of handguns in the legitimate category will continue to increase, we must accept that the entire credibility of the legislation will turn on those such as that JP, who lack the moral courage to refuse to give a reference. The fact that we are introducing a positive vetting system, that people will have to establish their fitness and a reference will have to be provided is not, in my judgment, a sufficient safeguard to protect us against future Dunblanes.
What should most engage our attention is the fact that we muffed it after Hungerford, because the victims' relatives—I do not criticise them for it—did not campaign for Parliament to take a certain view, and the Government made tough proposals that, late at night, in our usual way, were watered down. Most of us—we are all guilty, as the psychiatrists say—were elsewhere when the various lobbies were doing their work. As a consequence, despite the fact that half Michael Ryan's victims were killed by


a licensed handgun, we restricted the categories of weapon to be removed, so Thomas Hamilton was able to use just such a weapon to kill the youngsters of Dunblane.
Those who do not vote for a total ban tonight should ask themselves how Parliament will be able to look the electorate in the eye if someone else creeps out of the woodwork through the latest little loophole that we have left, and does something awful. It is a dreadful fact that, as far as the public are concerned, we have run out of road.

Sir Patrick Cormack: Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?

Mr. Mellor: If I may, I will first finish my point.
We have run out of road, and there is no doubt about how the public would vote on the issue tonight. If we leave a loophole and trust the very people who let us down before, we will not have made adequate redress for the ghastly tragedy that hit the community of Dunblane in March.

Sir Patrick Cormack: What happens if a farmer, who legitimately owns a shotgun, runs amok with it and kills six children in a school? Do we then ban all shotguns?

Mr. Mellor: We would have to consider that situation when we came to it—and I hope that we never will. If I were a licensed shotgun holder I would pray to every god that I recognised that that would never happen, because if it did the spotlight might shift. However, my concern is with the reality of today, in which, once again, we are creating a loophole that can be exploited.

Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I accept that Dunblane and Hungerford were both carried out with licensed firearms, but would not the House be better served by concentrating on the Metropolitan police survey showing that 96 per cent. of all firearms crimes involved unlicensed weapons?

Mr. Mellor: I have two points to make in reply. First, that may be a spurious figure; the Cullen report shows that its provenance is dubious. Secondly, the fact that we have a problem with illegal firearms is not an escape route for those who do not want to be properly rigorous with the conditions that we—in a society that is not the United States and does not recognise any right to bear arms—impose to deal with our problem with legal firearms, now that it has been thrust in front of us in a way that even the most thick-headed and insensitive of us cannot ignore.
The tragedy of Dunblane will not go away; it is a continuing stain on our national conscience. I have done my best, with whatever logic is at my disposal, and drawing on my experience in the Home Office, to ask myself whether we can possibly justify the maintenance of legally held handguns in our society. The answer that I reach—at least in my version of logic—is that we cannot.
7.15 pm
I want to say something that might strike some people as emotional. I had never visited Dunblane before March; I knew nothing of it. Over the past months it has been a

privilege for me to come to know some of the people of Dunblane, some of the bereaved parents and those who have worked with them in the Snowdrop campaign. I congratulate that campaign on the measured manner in which it has insisted that the issue will not go away and that the House will have to address it with both sides—not just the well-organised lobby, but the public interest—being represented.
I must tell my right hon. and hon. Friends that it was not our finest hour when we appeared to make an enemy of two women, both of whom—do not forget that we are talking Scotland here—voted Conservative in the general election. Ann Pearston made a wonderful speech at the Labour party conference; she would have made an equally wonderful speech at ours, had she been invited to do so, and it is not her fault that our rules do not allow such an event. There is no party political plot behind the Snowdrop campaign.
Anyone with any power of imagination must know how ghastly it must be to have a five-year-old child who goes off to school one day only to be blown away by a thing such as Hamilton that we, collectively, permitted to have a handgun. It cannot be easy for people with such an experience to come out from their vale of tears and appear on the media, exposing themselves and their families to all the scrutiny.
I have been deeply moved by my meetings with those people. I do not want those who take a more detached view to say that I am simply being emotional, but I want to tell the House what one bereaved father said to me. He said, "If I am able to secure a complete ban on handguns, I think I can put all this behind me, but if we do not achieve a complete ban, I do not think I shall ever be able to get over it."
That is not the only reason for making a change, but if we accept that we, collectively, bear responsibility for the state of the law and that we cannot merely say that it was a stupid policeman's fault that a known misfit such as Hamilton had a handgun certificate and could keep a small arsenal at home, we must acknowledge that we owe the victims and their families some redress.
I believe in logic, but let us never be embarrassed in a society such as ours to display emotion at such moments. Logic and emotion irresistibly build up to the fact that, after two massacres in less than 10 years—when 10 years ago we would have assumed that incidents like the Texas university massacre could not happen here—we are fully justified in saying, away with handguns. For heaven's sake, let us take that step tonight.

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: We have heard three powerful speeches, all on the same side of the argument, on the amendment so ably moved by the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes). I wish to add a fourth.
I disagree slightly with the right hon. and learned Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor), who said that the Bill, even if the amendment were not made, would none the less be an improvement on the present law.
The Bill is unfinished business. If it is not amended, it will have to be revisited for the reason to which both the hon. Member for Harrow, West and the right hon. and learned Member for Putney alluded: that the compromise that has been struck is illogical and unsustainable. That has been compounded by the fact that the Government


have not allowed a free vote. The Government should have used the now established machinery of allowing the House to consider several options with a free vote. That would have given us a much better chance of getting the real view of the Committee and securing legislation that would have stood the test of time. If the Bill passes unamended, it will not stand the test of time. If there is a change of Government in the next sixth months, I think that the House will be reconsidering the matter shortly after the next general election.
The Cullen report was a valuable and proper way for the Government to respond to what happened. It made a substantial contribution to informing the debate. Reading it opened a vista for me in respect of the background to and circumstances of the gun clubs and other interested groups. I was taken aback at the extent to which handguns are being used—and being used more and more. The hon. Member for Harrow, West mentioned the developing atmosphere and culture described in the Cullen report. That was something new and worrying to me. For that reason alone, the report was a useful contribution to the debate.
The decision facing the House is, as the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) said, a basic balance of judgment. As a Liberal with both a small "I" and a capital "L", I hate banning anything. We must have clear ideas and justifications before we ban something. In debating the money resolution, we mentioned an important part of the balance of the argument. I make no apology for returning to the importance of the necessary fairness of proper compensation for those who will be deprived of the ability to shoot handguns if the Bill is passed and the amendment accepted.
It is not only a question of the loss to individuals or of the ancillary and storage equipment or of the .22 guns that will be rendered virtually useless by the compromise that the Government have decided to recommend. I was surprised, nay amazed, that the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) made it clear that Labour believes that companies, firms or clubs that lose money as a direct or indirect result of the legislation should not be considered for compensation. That is regrettable; indeed, it is incomprehensible. During the Bill's passage, we must give more attention to provisions on museum, research and other historically notable weapons.
Having listened to the argument and way in which the amendment was moved by the hon. Member for Harrow, West, I have concluded that we must take action to eradicate handgun culture. That does not mean only legally held weapons. Attempts to deal with illegally held weapons as well as legally held ones are not mutually exclusive. As part of the fairness to the people who are being deprived of the ability to use handguns by the legislation, we owe it to them to say that best endeavours and urgent action will be taken; that no stones will be left unturned in trying to deal with the unacceptably high number of illegally held weapons as part and parcel of this process. If we were able to tell those people that we had achieved some success in doing that, they would be more reconciled to the loss that they are being forced to sustain by the legislation. I do not know why the Government do not actively consider a permanent amnesty, whether or not a bounty is involved, for illegally held handguns. I am surprised that they have not used the debate to make sensible suggestions on that.
Having considered the balance of probabilities and examined the options available, a vital element in making me decide that the amendment should be passed is the size of the guns. Clause 1 talks about firearms with an overall length of less than 60 cm or with a barrel length of less than 30 cm. The uniqueness of such handguns is their concealability. It is impossible to make provisions to deal with outrages such as Dunblane if there are lethal weapons that small. Of course, there are difficulties with other sorts of firearms, and no doubt we shall discuss rifles and so on in the future.
The concealability of small weapons makes them difficult to guard against with proper security provisions in schools or elsewhere. The right hon. and learned Member for Putney mentioned the environment that gives people the ability to practise with such weapons to develop a skill that can be used with devastating results. We must consider those factors, together with the potential loopholes in the registration and certification process and those in respect of mental illness, about which no one can make secure and certain guarantees. The balance of risk, when one considers all those matters, must be against its remaining possible for people to use legally registered handguns.
The risk of a repetition of an incident with a legally held gun is an intolerable prospect. Even if, as an individual, I were willing to allow people to use handguns for sporting and other pursuits, as a legislator it is unconscionable to vote against the amendment. Who can say that another legally held handgun will not cause death? As a legislator, that is an impossible position for me and I cannot contemplate it. The only way in which we can guarantee that legally held handguns will never again be used in such incidents is to ban them. That is what I propose to vote for and what I recommend to the Committee.

Sir Patrick Cormack: The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) said that he was the fourth contributor in a row to take the same line. I shall be the first to take a rather different one. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor) made a most powerful and eloquent speech. No one who heard it could fail to have been moved by it. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) spoke with fervour, eloquence and great persuasive power in moving the amendment. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) introduced some of the subjects that he did, but I realise that he must feel personally involved, living as he does in Dunblane. There is no reason why any hon. Member should ever have to apologise for being emotional when we debate such issues.
I agree with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Putney on two things at least. Compromises are untidy and generally unsatisfactory. I agree also that free votes are desirable in situations such as this. Since I entered the House, I have tried to treat every vote as a free one, though it has not got me very far. There are occasions when the Whips should be off in every sense, and this is one of them.
I do not want to take up too much of the House's time, so I shall address some, but not all, of the points raised by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Putney in his fine speech. When he was courteous enough, as he always is, to allow me to intervene, I asked him a


question about a farmer with a shotgun. He responded by saying, "Well, yes, perhaps we would have to look at that example." That revealed the irrefutable logic—[Interruption.]—I wish that the hon. Member for Blyth Valley (Mr. Campbell) would be quiet—at the base of the campaign.
7.30 pm
Of course every firearm is potentially dangerous. Every weapon can be used to maim and, in most cases, to kill. I have a shotgun licence, and I have a shotgun. Many people in this country legitimately use shotguns and rifles for country sports. The vast majority of those who own such weapons are law-abiding, sensible and sober citizens. The same is true of most people who indulge in shooting with handguns as a sport. To draw upon the phrase used by my right hon. and learned Friend, we have to weed out others by deciding who should own and use such guns. He is quite right to say that there is shared guilt if anyone like a Ryan or a Hamilton is allowed to possess weapons.
I have long felt that there should be at least two signatures to countersign any application for any licence or certificate. I still believe that to be the case. I believe that it would be ideal if one of those signatures were that of a medical practitioner, although I take the point that my right hon. and learned Friend made in his speech.
As I understand the Bill, there will still be a requirement for one signature for an application for a shotgun licence. As the possessor of such a licence, I say to my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary that there should be two, because there have been examples of farmers turning shotguns on members of their family and killing people. We can all think of such examples. There was a particularly terrible case in Wales about 18 months ago—I note that the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) nods in agreement.
I believe strongly that there should be a closer vetting process. I also believe strongly, however, that our country would be the poorer if all legitimate country sports were outlawed. To treat those who engage in legitimate sports as though they were all potential criminals does no service to society.
As I said in an earlier brief intervention, I believe that there is a duty incumbent upon the Committee to seek to be objective. That is not to say that we cannot understand and share the emotions expressed, or feel the shame, distress and all the other emotions that we experienced on that terrible March day, which none of us will ever forget. When we are legislating, however, we must seek to be objective. Unless we are to say that because guns can kill no one shall ever legally own one again, we must look at what we intend to allow.
There should be a tighter vetting process for all firearms, including those used for legitimate country sporting purposes. I accept, of course, that handguns are easier to conceal and can be more devastating in their effect. I believe that all handguns should be held in legally registered, tightly secured premises. If those who wish to operate those premises cannot meet the stringent requirements that society has a right that Parliament should demand, well, tough luck—they should close those premises.
I agree with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Putney about certain other matters. For example, I believe that it is obscene to have targets of the human form. It is appalling for people to dress up in combat rig and behave Rambo-fashion. I would weed those people out. I would make everyone who currently holds a licence or a certificate reapply. I would be tough. I would not seek, however, to brand all legitimate sportsmen as potential criminals.

Mr. David Winnick: Who does?

Sir Patrick Cormack: Those who are in favour of a total ban on handguns, I fear.
I believe that it is extremely important that we do not brand all those engaged in country sports as potential criminals.

Mr. Winnick: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He is usually the last hon. Member to distort the argument. Will he therefore accept that those who want a total ban on handguns, and who will vote accordingly, would not for one moment take the view of which he has just accused us? I believe that I speak for colleagues on both sides of the House on that. We do not believe that those who are engaged in such sporting activities are potential criminals. I believe nothing of the kind and it does not strengthen the hon. Gentleman's argument to accuse us of something of which we certainly are not guilty.

Sir Patrick Cormack: I was not accusing the hon. Gentleman or those who take that line. I am sure that that is not their intention, but that is the effect. That is the difference.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Putney and the four preceding contributors in the debate said that we cannot risk another Dunblane, and that we do not know who might commit such a crime. My solution is at least as logical as that of my right hon. and learned Friend. I call for the strongest vetting procedure and the most careful supervision. I would insist that every handgun be kept in secure and proper premises, but we should not outlaw a sport or penalise those who derive perfectly legitimate pleasure from it.
As has been said, one must recognise that many of those who engage in sports with handguns are themselves severely handicapped. It is the one thing that they can do, as was attested to in a moving letter that was read out earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, North-West (Mr. Richards).
I believe that the Bill is an untidy compromise, but I will support the Government because it goes some way towards achieving a position of common sense and objectivity. Much as I admired the eloquence of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Putney, and much as I found his speech compelling, I cannot agree with him, for one reason above all else, which was contained in his answer to my intervention: where do we stop if we have further examples of crimes committed in the way that I suggested?
As the Bill makes rapid progress through the House, which it rightly should, I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary will give some further


thought and consideration to the points on vetting that I have raised. I appreciate that they are not appropriate for a full debate now, but they are not unimportant.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: I shall speak to amendments Nos. 15 and 16, but I recognise that we are currently debating amendment No. 1, which brings us to the nub of this highly emotive argument.
We have heard the paranoid reaction of gun clubs and the supporters of gun sports, who feel that they are a threatened and persecuted minority. We have heard powerful and emotive speeches from the right hon. and learned Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor) and from my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson). It is right that we should share the emotions of the people of Dunblane, but it is also right that we, as Members of Parliament, should approach this difficult legislation, not in an emotional state of mind, but in a rational one.
My argument is that the proposals in amendments Nos. 15 and 16, which further the principle of dismantling weapons as a means of control, are a far more rational and effective way of achieving our objective. After all, we began to approach the situation rationally by appointing Lord Cullen to conduct an inquiry. That is a proper way of proceeding, and we should have done it after Hungerford. The right hon. and learned Member for Putney might have criticised the appointment of a judge, but an inquiry is, in itself, a rational process.
Lord Cullen himself suggested dismantlement in his conclusions. He said:
I am satisfied that of all the measures which stop short of a ban"—
he did not propose a ban—
the one which is open to the least objection on the ground of practicability is the temporary dismantling of self-loading pistols".
That is Lord Cullen's suggestion, so it is right that we should consider it more seriously than we have done up to now. That is why I am proposing dismantling in my amendments, and why I shall continue to pursue the principle. It is also right that the Government should deal seriously with the proposal, which they have not done so far.
The Government's reply to Lord Cullen's suggestion was a little disingenuous—I hope that the Home Secretary will forgive me for saying so. It was an inadequate reply. I sensed that they were on weak ground from their approach to the same issue last week on Second Reading, especially when the Minister of State, Home Office, the hon. Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe), refused to take any interventions on that point. She recognised that she was on weak ground.
In their reply, the Government dealt with a subsidiary part of Lord Cullen's argument. Lord Cullen said:
In exceptional cases it"—
dismantlement—
would not be practicable for some pistols and some revolvers. The exact extent to which that would be the case is a matter of detail. The solution to it, short of banning such handguns, would be to require barrel blocks".
The Government concentrated their reply on the practicability—or, in their view, impracticability—of barrel blocks and did not deal with the substantive issue.

Mr. Howard: indicated dissent.

Mr. Mitchell: The Secretary of State shakes his head, but all that was said on the substantive issue was that not all handguns could be dismantled. That is not exactly true.

I am not a gun enthusiast and I know nothing about guns, but I want us to approach the issue rationally and calmly. In fact, 95 per cent. or more of handguns can be dismantled.

Mr. Howard: indicated dissent.

Mr. Mitchell: If the Secretary of State knows otherwise, why does he not tell us what proportion of handguns, and what specific makes, cannot be dismantled? If we can achieve the effective control we want through the principle of dismantling, we have a responsibility to do so. If the Government do not accept that method, I want to know why not. They must express, defend and justify their approach better than they have until now.
The Government rested their case on the fact certain handguns cannot be dismantled, but such weapons form a minute proportion of the range of handguns available. Amendment No. 15 covers that issue by proposing that any handgun that cannot be dismantled should be banned. If dismantling is to be the principle of control, it is easy and straightforward to ban those handguns that cannot be dismantled and so fit into that control system; having done that, we can then provide for the dismantling of all other handguns. It is an extremely simple, straightforward, effective and logical method of control.
The Government have not explained their case adequately, which makes me believe that they are acting according to some principle other than rational consideration in respect of the Bill. I still cannot understand why we cannot legislate to ensure that part of a gun should be kept at a gun club and part—inevitably the smaller part, which is the cylinder in a pistol and the slide in a revolver—should be taken home, so that the two parts can only be reunited and so make a working handgun in the club, under supervision and in licensed and controlled conditions. That would achieve all that we want to achieve. Our aim is to prevent access to and the use of handguns outside clubs—to prevent another Dunblane—and we would achieve that by legislating for the principle of dismantling.

Sir Terence Higgins: Is it not true that that would be safer than having large accumulations of guns in one place? My right hon. and learned Friend argues that people would buy duplicate slides or cylinders to fit in their guns, but, if they are prepared to go to such lengths, they will probably buy illegal weapons anyway. Will the hon. Gentleman also bear in mind the fact that the pure solution put forward by Cullen is a great deal cheaper in terms of compensation?

Mr. Mitchell: I shall bear that point in mind—it certainly would be cheaper. The right hon. Gentleman makes the valid point that control by dismantling would prevent the storage of piles of whole weapons at gun clubs, which might be subject to burglary, ram-raiding or some other form of theft. If the dismantling proposal is accepted, any thief—whether stealing from the club or from the home of a gun owner—would find only useless parts of guns. If the argument is that owners will purchase duplicate parts, that can easily be prevented through an effective and properly administered licensing system. All the arguments point toward dismantling.


If the principle of dismantling were embodied in legislation, to carry a complete gun outside would, in itself, be an offence; that would make it easier to control illegal guns—an issue that the Government have not addressed. Any gun that was outside in a whole and working condition would be illegal, and could be dealt with effectively and, I hope, powerfully.

Mr. Robert Banks: The hon. Gentleman must know that the Government took evidence from the Forensic Science Service to justify their criticism of Cullen's proposal of dismantling weapons as a means of solving the problem. The letter from the Forensic Science Service is in the Library. It says that the small screw that is the retaining part for the side plate of a common revolver could easily be lost or disfigured, and that a special screwdriver with an accurately ground tip would be required to remove or replace it.
Such problems can easily be overcome—anyone with any sense would keep a spare retaining screw and would have an appropriate screwdriver—but is not the real point that it would be perfectly feasible to allow weapons that can be dismantled to be licensed, and to permit them to be fired in clubs when the two parts are put together? It is as simple as that.

Mr. Mitchell: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. When I saw that point in the Government's reply, I thought that, if that was the level of argument that the Government were to use to put their case, it was pathetic—to cite the possible loss of small screws is to debase logical and rational debate.
What is proposed by dismantling is more effective, in that it prevents access to complete and working handguns outside clubs; and it is less draconian, in that it allows the sport to continue and guns to be used in controlled conditions. Although the right hon. and learned Member for Putney showed some distaste for gun clubs as the embodiment of the gun culture, I have to say to him that the gun culture is independent of gun clubs, and we cannot deal with it through legislation. We have to use education, effective control of violence on television, and other means of mobilising society against the gun culture.
Dismantling as a means of control would allow a legitimate sport to continue. If we can allow the sport to continue while preventing access to working guns outside, we should do so. The onus should be on allowing those people to continue enjoying their sport if possible while avoiding tragedies such as Dunblane.
As the right hon. Member for Worthing (Sir T. Higgins) said, the proposal is less expensive. I do not know what the compensation bill will be as a result of the measure. It could be as high as £100 million, and if we accept tonight the principle of banning all guns—.22 calibre and less—it will be even more substantial. We could avoid that huge and unknown expense by taking a much more rational approach. If we rush into legislation without considering it properly, it will be messy.
I have a problem, as amendment No. 1 appears before my amendment. We have tried to get round that problem, but have not succeeded, so we shall vote on amendment

No. 1. What shall I do about amendment No. 1 when I want to vote for my amendment No. 15, to which we may well have to return?

Mr. Alex Salmond: It is a quandary.

Mr. Mitchell: Yes, it is.
I cannot avoid the cynical thought that the Government are hoping to limit the compensation bill by limiting the ban on handguns to weapons over .22 on the grounds that, if they do that, the .22 weapons and the gun clubs will wither on the vine.
I have talked to members of Grimsby gun and pistol club, who share my suspicion. Membership of that club has decreased, and it has had to take out large overdrafts. Like other gun clubs, it will have to meet stringent and extremely expensive safety requirements at a time when membership is falling, which will give it financial problems.
If the Government can get rid of most of the .22s and the gun clubs through the provisions outlined in the Bill, they will not have to pay compensation. That may be a cynical thought, but one has such thoughts about the Government from time to time. I hate having to say that, and it is cruel to the Government, but that will almost certainly be one of the consequences of the legislation. I am in a quandary over how to vote on amendment No. 1, particularly if I take a cynical view about what the Government are doing.
I do not wish to continue that argument now, as I shall make my own decision. But surely we should have looked longer and harder at the effective and rational way of achieving the objective we all want.
The method would be a little more difficult to administer than a complete ban, but, if we did not introduce a complete ban, but approached the problem via dismantling weapons, we could make huge financial savings. We can achieve our objective—an effective ban on working handguns outside gun clubs—through dismantling. The principle of dismantling allows us to achieve our aim more cheaply, effectively and rationally, while allowing the sport to continue more effectively. We should adopt that approach.

Sir Mark Lennox-Boyd: I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), as I wish to support him. First, however, I shall say a few words about emotion.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor) made a powerful argument, with great passion and eloquence. My hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) correctly said that we must allow emotion to enter such debates—I fully understand that it would be an insult to those involved in the terrible tragedy that we are discussing were we not to allow emotion to enter our debates—but, ultimately, a rational decision has to be made.
The most powerful emotion must come from the bereaved parents, but we are dealing with another sort of emotion—with a minority interest that is severely threatened by the Government's proposals. Although the level of deprivation is ridiculously small in comparison with that of the parents of the Dunblane children, there is a level of deprivation involved.


When I visited Morecambe rifle and pistol club in my constituency in July, one or two of its members were very near to tears at the tragedy of Dunblane and the horror of the experience that the nation had been through. One or two members were terribly emotional at the threat to what they rightly regarded as a perfectly legitimate sporting interest—they described to me the skills involved. It was not my first visit to the rifle club; I had made an earlier visit a few years before. I have been in contact with it for a number of years, as one of its members is articulate and keeps in touch with me.
I was frank with the club members, and told them that I would support Lord Cullen's recommendations, on which I thought the Government would base their legislative proposals. The members were reasonably accepting of my view; some of them felt that I should act in accordance with my conscience, but I said that we appointed judges of distinction to give us guidance, and that we should follow Lord Cullen's recommendations. The meeting ended on that note, and I believe that the people I saw were reluctantly willing to accept Lord Cullen's conclusions. However, they feel unhappy about the measures that the Government have decided to introduce following Lord Cullen's report.
One reason that they felt that what I was saying in July was probably good advice was that I had received from my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Office, a letter containing the magic words. It said that the Government would have to
strike the right balance between the legitimate rights of shooters and public safety".
We all know that that comment does not have a precise meaning, but it is slightly loaded: it talks about the legitimate rights of shooters when a large measure of their sporting activity would not be made illegal. My disappointment at the Government's proposals—I have so far been loyal to the Government when voting—is that, as the hon. Member for Great Grimsby said, they did not accept Lord Cullen's recommendations.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Putney feels that Lord Cullen should never have been appointed, but he concedes that the report was right in evaluating the evidence—we both agree on that. Those who feel that Lord Cullen's report should have been limited to the evidence are stretching my imagination. I cannot believe that a man of Lord Cullen's distinction could be expected to evaluate the evidence and not come up with a conclusion.
In addition, when strong feelings are expressed by those who have suffered terrible tragedy, the purpose of appointing someone of Lord Cullen's distinction to make recommendations is to get behind the emotional pressure and try to see the arguments on which rational decisions will ultimately be based. I am sure that all those associated with the Dunblane inquiry would, as we do, pay the highest tribute to Lord Cullen for the way in which he has conducted the proceedings. The Government rightly appointed Lord Cullen to make recommendations in order to get behind the emotions. I am sad that those recommendations have not been followed.
The hon. Member for Great Grimsby spoke about dismantlement of weapons. As he said, the Government's answer to his proposal is that it is feasible to dismantle some weapons but not a practical proposition for others. The first question that one must ask when that argument

is deployed is, "What are the numbers? How many weapons is it feasible to dismantle, and how many weapons is it not?"
As it happens, I wrote to my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary on the very day that he made his statement, to ask that question. I know that he has been burdened with work, and I have not yet received a reply—

Mr. Austin Mitchell: Nor have I.

8 pm

Sir Mark Lennox-Boyd: Nor has the hon. Member for Great Grimsby.
The House is entitled to a statistical explanation of that very important fact tonight, as are those of my constituents who attend the Morecambe rifle and pistol club. If the Government were to say, "Some weapons can be dismantled, so we shall allow their use under stringent controls in gun clubs, but we are afraid that the others, which cannot be dismantled, must be destroyed," at least that would be a rational position.
We must not allow the issue of dismantlement of weapons to be clouded by the issue of the barrel lock that does not really work. I am not pursuing that; I do not have enough technical knowledge of the subject. I do know, however, that, if one dismantles a weapon and puts one piece in one place and another piece in another, one cannot use it, unless—this is the Government's argument—one feels that the missing part, the slide assembly or the cylinder, could be manufactured or acquired.
The answer to that argument—I am entitled to a careful explanation if I am wrong—is, "Yes, but one would be breaking the law. If one had that part surreptitiously without disclosing it on one's licence or seeking permission to have it, one would be breaking the law." Once again we are back in a position where we are talking of people who would be already breaking the law, as it would be if it were as the hon. Member for Grimsby has advocated in amendment No. 15.
That is not a powerful argument against amendment No. 15; nor is it a powerful argument to say that people could, once again, legally manufacture weapon parts in their homes and go out and use them as horrible weapons of terror. First, it is very difficult to manufacture the parts of a weapon; one needs to be highly skilled. Secondly, there are many much easier methods of obtaining those horrible weapons of violence that may be used in such a way, if that is the intention of the perpetrator of such a crime.
Of course the Government are entitled to reject Lord Cullen's recommendations, but when a Government establish an inquiry by a such a distinguished man and experienced judge, it is essential, if the supporters of that Government are to be carried with consent, that the arguments for rejecting the recommendations advanced by that judge are completely sound, completely logical and impossible to doubt.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary must address those points very carefully when he replies, and he must convince those of us who have doubts—at least among Conservative Members, and the hon. Member for Great Grimsby—that we are wrong.

Mr. Alex Salmond: I am having some interesting new experiences this evening. First, I agreed with every word of the speech by the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes), and I applaud the manner in which he introduced amendment No. 1, which I am supporting tonight. Secondly, I almost supported a guillotine motion for the first time in my parliamentary career. I was saved from that by the fact that it was not pressed to a vote.
Although I can see the reason for time-saving this evening and support it, I am disappointed that the debate will not be extended because I believe that, as the debate is talked through, the fragility of the botched compromise at the heart of the Government's position is becoming increasingly clear.
I have sat through the debate. The kindest, friendliest thing that has been said about the Government's position is that it is a "weak compromise"—and those were the words of the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack), who intends to support the Government in the Lobby tonight.
There are two inherent contradictions at the heart of what the Government have to say. The first has been mentioned tonight, and that is the question of the distinction that the Government are seeking to make between .22 calibre handguns and higher-calibre weapons. That distinction in terms of deadly force of weapons is unsustainable, and the Government must know it.
The headline in tonight's Glasgow Evening Times reads: ".22 Maniac Kills Four Children"—the case that was mentioned by the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson). It reads:
Today's shooting victims—a 16 year-old girl and her three brothers aged 10, 13 and 14 were found in their beds in Carolina.
The PA copy continues:
A .22 caliber handgun was found at the home, WYFF-TV in Greenville Carolina reported.
On the very day that the Government are trying to sustain the difference in terms of deadly effect between .22 calibre handguns and higher-calibre handguns, we hear of an atrocity, the extent of which, even in a gun culture such as the United States of America, is unusual, committed by a .22 calibre weapon.
The Home Secretary is correct that a .22 weapon does not have the same force as a higher-calibre weapon, but it is accurate and deadly. The statistics prove it, and the evidence of cases such as today's tragedy in the United States proves it. The distinction is unsustainable, and the Home Secretary must know it.
The second troubling aspect of the Government's position is gun club storage. To me there are only two logical positions. Either one believes that a gun club can be totally secure, in which case any calibre of weapons could be used on gun club premises, or, like me, having seen the evidence presented to Lord Cullen—not least by the gun lobby—one believes that premises cannot be made secure, in which case no calibre of handgun should be used on those premises. It is one or the other. The Government are trying to have it both ways.
We see the differences between the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Scotland. On the day that the Cullen report was released, we had a private meeting—I thank the Home Secretary for that, as I did at the time—in which the differences between those two

Ministers were exposed. The Secretary of State for Scotland told us that, effectively, the measure would mean the end of gun clubs—that very few, if any, gun clubs could meet those strenuous conditions. A few seconds later, the Home Secretary said that new gun clubs could meet the conditions and come into existence. The Secretary of State for Scotland regards this legislation as a way to erase gun clubs and the Home Secretary openly says that new gun clubs meeting these stipulations could come into existence.
One cannot simultaneously argue for the eradication of gun clubs and the resuscitation of new gun clubs. The Government are trying to have it both ways in a botched compromise between the two lead Ministers supporting the legislation.
I believe that all right hon. and hon. Members are trying to do the right thing. They have thought about this issue for months. I claim no moral superiority over any other Members of the House; I believe that we are all trying to do the right thing.
Earlier, we were asked how we would respond if another tragedy were to take place. No one can give any guarantees, regardless of what we do; I accept that. We must all try to choose the least dangerous option. There are no guarantees. But let us suppose that the Government had their way, and afterwards an atrocity was committed using .22 weapons—either someone had taken them out of a gun club or someone had practised and gained expertise by using them in a gun club. In that context, how would hon. Members feel?
Some people on my side of the argument would argue, "We did our best," but even we would share in our collective responsibility as a legislature. We would feel that perhaps we had not done enough.
Looking at the record after Hungerford, I feel that I did not do enough to argue the case. I am sure that many other hon. Members, if they are honest, will share that opinion. There are those who genuinely and in principle believe that a ban on handguns is not the way forward. They might be able to live with their consciences because we all have to live with our mistakes, even if other people die through our mistakes. But what about those hon. Members who believe that a handgun ban is the right way forward, but will be dragooned, encouraged or helped into the Lobby by the imposition of a three-line Whip? If an atrocity were to happen, how could those people carry that burden? I do not think that they could. It underlines the argument why this issue, of all issues, should be openly one of conscience.
I want to say something about the position of Northern Ireland Members. I do not think that any two societies could have a closer relationship than Scotland and Northern Ireland—they are the "blood of our blood and the bone of our bone". I am certain that it is the settled position in Scotland that there should be a handgun ban. That settled position has come about not just from the emotion after Dunblane; it has hardened in the arguments over time.
We hope that Northern Ireland Members will find it in their hearts and consciences to vote with us. We would understand if, because this is not Northern Ireland legislation, they felt that it was not their place to intervene. However, feeling as we do in Scotland, we would take it ill if they were to vote against us, given the close relationship between our two societies.


I want to make a final plea for a free vote. I understand that, at a private meeting with the Dunblane relatives last Thursday, the Prime Minister gave the impression that if he were to change his mind and allow a free vote there would be political embarrassment. I can assure the Prime Minister that we—and, I am sure, the Labour Front Bench—would not take advantage of any such change of mind. I accept that there would be a momentary political embarrassment for a Prime Minister and a Home Secretary who changed their minds on such an issue at such a time. However, that momentary embarrassment would be as nothing compared with the real political damage that will be done if the Government win the vote but people believe that they have won it unfairly.
The right hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor) said that he had the great privilege of meeting the Dunblane parents, the Snowdrop petitioners and others during the past few weeks. I endorse his remarks. It has been a privilege for myself and other hon. Members to meet people of such calibre. They are decent people putting their arguments not with hype or emotion, but with enormous authority. Of course, we should not automatically do what they say because they have suffered a huge personal tragedy, no matter how much we feel for them, but their arguments do come with authority and clarity.
One of the Dunblane parents said something on television last Thursday that struck me and which I hope will strike other hon. Members. Les Morton said that if there was a free vote in this place, the relatives and the other campaigners would feel that they had placed their case before us and would accept a judgment made in good conscience—but what they would find impossible to accept would be the knowledge that there was a majority in this House in favour of a handgun ban, but that that majority view could not be expressed because of the imposition of a three-line Whip and the strictures of the Government.
I suggest to the Home Secretary that that is real political damage. If the Government win the vote tonight through the use of what will be seen as a disreputable and unfair tactic, this issue will haunt the Conservative party up to and through the general election campaign.

Mr. Hugh Dykes: I am grateful to be called, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Because the speeches of my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor) were extremely comprehensive, I can be brief. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West for tabling the amendment.
I am also grateful to be called directly after the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), who referred to the absence of a free vote. It is one of the most disturbing features of this debate. Perhaps I could be justifiably accused of being naive, but I remain very surprised that, having had time to reconsider, the Government's final decision is not for a free vote. I am sure that no one in the House would criticise the Government for a change of mind, which would be hugely and universally welcomed in this House, in the other place—which has been closely observing our debates—and in the whole country.
8.15 pm
Parliament is going through one of the periods in history when the esteem in which it is held is very low; when the public are increasingly mystified, frustrated and turned off by the antics at Question Time, especially Prime Minister's questions, with the massive trading of insults that masquerades as constructive party politics; and when all the parts of the syndrome of this place are going through a very bad patch indeed.
Yet, on the most primordial subject of all, the future safety of our national population, and in trying, in the limited way open to us, to make amends—it is the correct phrase when referring to the Dunblane tragedy—as we cannot make amends intrinsically for that dreadful, unspeakable, horrendous tragedy, we are not doing those things that we should do as a combined, united Parliament. I am sure that there would be an enormous majority in favour of doing them were it not for pressure from the Conservative Whips—and so we, as a House of Commons, are failing in our central duty. That is a solemn mistake, and I very much regret that the Government are making it.
The Government may be making this mistake for reasons that I can guess and understand. It is an automatic, characteristic response of our close and disciplined party system that matters must be tightly whipped. I guess that it was a hard-discussed, hard-fought Cabinet decision, with the bold prospect of going beyond some of the excellent recommendations in the Cullen report. I am not enthusiastic about some of the other recommendations in the report, but I will not go into detail on that now. I guess that, after that fierce and prolonged Cabinet discussion, the Secretary of State for Scotland took the Cabinet beyond the Cullen suggestions.
I applaud and congratulate the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Scotland, other Ministers, members of the Cabinet and members of the Government, as well as the team in the Home Office, on what they have achieved and recommended. I hope that my colleagues in the Government do not misunderstand my remarks. They come from sadness and a certain amount of naivety, rather than a wilful hostility to what is being proposed. Anyone who said that this is not one of the most agonising decisions made by this place, in a long time, on human and social policy would be very mistaken.

Mr. Rupert Allason: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Dykes: I will, but I am watching the clock so that others may speak.

Mr. Allason: If this is such an agonising decision, has my hon. Friend any evidence to support his apparent belief that hon. Members on either or both sides of the House are being bullied into voting against their consciences?

Mr. Dykes: I wish that I had not given way, as valuable minutes have been wasted. However, I must allow my hon. Friend the right to intervene. He misunderstands what I have been saying. I pay tribute to the Whips in this case for having left us alone. It is the totality of the effort coming from this place that really matters.


As I said during the statement on the Government's response to Cullen, it is a primordial matter of human survival and the future of human society. There is an urgent, overwhelming need for this Government, this House of Commons and this Parliament to turn back the incipient, menacing gun culture that is beginning to get a grip on our society. I pay tribute to the sincerity of the arguments of many of my distinguished hon. Friends, led by my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Sir J. Wiggin). It is all very well when we receive deputations, delegations, letters and phone calls from extremely respectable members of the shooting fraternity—I would call them the shootocracy—but that is not the whole picture. There have been disturbing manifestations of what some of those other people are like, which have been mentioned in this debate.
There is not a fine line between very gentlemanly or gentlewomanly sporting clubs—in which very pristine, black and white targets are set up—and a United Kingdom in which the only manifestations of human behaviour are the national lottery, Nintendo and mugging. An alternative establishment is getting a grip on our society, some of which is related to underworld activity. I am sure that officials in the Home Office, the Metropolitan police and other organisations are closely watching those activities.
I think that I am entitled to be a constructive legislator on this issue because of a fear—I do not think that it is an irrational fear—that I developed before the Dunblane tragedy, although that is the provenance of this legislation. In 1980, I visited an open-air gun club in the hills of the Los Angeles forest, outside Los Angeles, where I saw the terrifying United States gun culture at work. Absolutely crazy people were members of it, and they were able to go into a shop in an ordinary way to buy a gun. We are a long way from that situation, but we know that people here are beginning to perceive that that establishment is getting a grip on our society. It is our job to turn it back.
One must therefore acknowledge that the Government are doing that which the House overwhelming welcomes. I supported the Bill with some constructive pleasure on Second Reading because the Government are going beyond Cullen. They are also reducing the legalistic and bureaucratic complexities of the Cullen recommendations. I recommend that course.
On 28 October 1996, the Gun Control Network sent a letter to hon. Members. I pay great tribute to the work done by the network, which was set up after the Dunblane tragedy, and all the people associated with it, particularly the component representing Dunblane parents and their friends and neighbours. Like other hon. Members, I can pay no finer tribute than to the way in which the parents have handled themselves since the tragedy by plunging in and producing some excellent suggestions. It would have been easy for them to switch off and say, "We want nothing to do with this now. The tragedy is so enormous and unspeakable that we disengage ourselves from it and leave it to other people."
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West for the way in which he has liaised with the Gun Control Network. The fact that two hon. Members from Harrow have tabled amendment No. 1 is entirely a coincidence—should anyone irrationally think that something peculiar is happening in Harrow or with Harrow gun clubs.
I sympathise with genuine, honest and decent shooters, particularly those of many years standing. It is very interesting, however, that the former military personnel with whom I have spoken are overwhelmingly in favour of a total ban. Elderly veterans who have been at the real, brutal front of the fighting in past wars are most fiercely in favour of a total ban. No proposals are perfect, and there will always be the dangers presented by exceptions. As we know, the Bill is not an attack on shotguns and rifles.
In its letter, the Gun Control Network stated:
to allow .22 calibre weapons will inevitably offer shooters the prospect of further exceptions as time passes and the memory of Dunblane fades.
Is it possible for us to contemplate the memory of that dreadful day fading? It is awful to think that we live in such a violent world—with such violence on television and in arcades, where youths play violent video games that violence becomes a routine part of our culture. I do not want to accept that that will happen.
The letter continues:
The matter will be a constant source of conflict over technical and logistical detail. Manufacturers will be seeking fully to exploit the exceptions"—
which they are very quick to do. The hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) mentioned in his speech the brochure on the convertibility of ordinary .22s.
The letter continues by stating that manufacturers
may even design new models to bypass the ban. There will also be continual dispute over the transport of guns from club to club for competition purposes.
I thank the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), who is no longer in the Chamber, for not mentioning Europe in his speech—that was ingenious. His proposals for dismantling are immensely bureaucratic and complex, and they would be a nightmare to implement.
So the Government are going a great distance to please the overwhelming majority of hon. Members. But they are not going far enough if they do not offer a free vote—which would provide the combined authority of all hon. Members, so that people would have the true expression and know exactly where we stand.
With all due respect, I cannot agree with my 35 colleagues who, in their demarche, rebelled against the Government's proposals in the vote on the Bill's Second Reading. I cannot accept that pistol shooting is a conventional sport in the normal sense. I am sorry to sound like a spoil sport, but it is not a conventional sport as we understand the term, and I do not believe that it should be encouraged to be so. If people wish to switch to different types of firearms to get round the legislation, they can do so. Many people combine pistol shooting and rifle shooting, and no hon. Member is proposing a central attack on traditional rural shooting.
We have a solemn duty to perform today. Even at this late stage—although it may be too much to ask—the Government could relax their instructions so that we can obtain a stronger combined result. I think that this issue is the same as other matters of conscience, when there have been free votes on Government Bills. There are plenty of precedents for that, and I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend and his colleagues will think again about it on this extremely important occasion.

Mr. Sam Galbraith: As the result of considered judgment over a considerable


period I support the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes). Like the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), I think that that is the settled view and position of the Scottish people, and I find it inconceivable that it is not also the settled view in the rest of the country.
I considered the Government's view that perhaps we should make exemptions for .22 weapons. Before giving that view undue consideration, however, I was immediately dissuaded by the gun lobby from accepting it. In my meetings with representatives of the lobby, they told me that, for various reasons, it would be inconsistent and illogical to retain such provision in the legislation, and that we should therefore not entertain retaining it.
Arguments have been made by those who wish to retain guns in our society. The arguments are spurious, and they muddy the water. The first argument is that crime is committed by using illegally held guns, and we have been told that only 4 per cent. of crimes are committed by legally held handguns. There is no evidence to support that contention. The 4 per cent. figure came from a small study conducted by an inspector in London, which was based only on recovered guns. The conclusions go no further. The opinion of the Select Committee that investigated the matter was that there are no reliable statistics. The Government have no statistics, and nor does the Home Office. We should therefore not accept the statistic.
The case that crime is committed by illegally held handguns is not relevant to the matter that we are now debating. We are not talking about criminals using guns in a threatening manner to achieve some other purpose, such as to rob a bank. We are talking about a possible mass murder by a person who uses a legally held handgun to murder many people. That is the issue, and the statistic on illegally held handguns is not necessarily relevant.
We have heard about vetting as a possible means of dealing with the issue, rather than banning all handguns. Vetting will be carried out by humans, and humans are fallible. It is not possible to close the loophole through vetting. Thomas Hamilton would never have been diagnosed as unfit and unsuitable to own a handgun or as having anything wrong with him on medical or other grounds. He would easily have passed all the established criteria. That option is not open to us.

Sir Wyn Roberts: Surely the evidence of Cullen is that Hamilton was severely criticised, certainly by one police officer who recommended that his firearms certificate should not be renewed.

Mr. Galbraith: Most of the observations about Hamilton and his mental state were made after the event. Taking the event into account, one could make judgments about what was wrong; they could not be made before, and that was the problem in the Hamilton case.
Another argument that is often advanced and which I have heard frequently today is, "Why bother? There are no guarantees. We cannot legislate against evil. We cannot guarantee that this will never happen again." However, no one is asking us to legislate against evil; that would be foolish. No one is asking us to give guarantees; it is not possible to do so. All that we are being asked to do is reduce the possibility of such an event happening again. The only way to do that is to ban all handguns.
The decision that we have to make is where to draw the line. The hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) said that to take that argument to its logical conclusion means banning all rifles and handguns. Logic is an analytical process that deals in abstracts and can be taken to certain conclusions, but as human beings we make reasoned judgments that intervene in that logical process. Our reasoned judgments form various barriers—they might be physiological, physical or geographical—that we have to insert into the logical process. It is my reasoned judgment that we should ban all handguns and go further than the Secretary of State.
I say that for a number of reasons. What will happen if we continue to allow .22 handguns to be available? There are three possibilities. First, we could retain the status quo. That is unlikely, because we are undergoing such a seismic change. Secondly, the number of gun clubs could decrease as .22s are often used as a starting point—numbers would fall and we might get a de facto ban. If that is the hope, let us be honest and state that in the legislation. The third and most likely outcome, however, is that individuals will trade down and the number of .22s will increase. Members of the gun lobby tell me that the .22 is the assassin's weapon and that, if they wanted to kill someone, they would use one. If the number of .22s is to increase, we must ensure that we have a ban in place. It is our duty to consider that at this stage.
I conclude on an emotional note. I am not ashamed to say that emotion has a part to play. I have three young daughters aged seven, five and three, and when I look at pictures of primary 1 at Dunblane I see pictures of other folks' young daughters. I was present when the House debated the firearms legislation following the Hungerford massacre. We failed—I failed —because we did not take the interest in it that we should have. We saw what we regarded as an internal dispute between the gun lobby and what the Government were trying to do. We failed to push the matter further, and we cannot let that happen again. I do not wish to fail this time, and I therefore ask hon. Members to vote in favour of the amendment.

Mr. Bill Walker: So that no one is in any doubt, I should say that I shall vote for the Government's proposals, not because of the three-line Whip but because they strike the best balance in the circumstances. However, I am not claiming that I am completely happy, because I am very rarely entirely happy with the legislation we pass.
I put on record the fact that the parents of Dunblane and the people involved in the Snowdrop campaign who have been to the House and whom we met in Scotland have behaved with admirable restraint in the circumstances. While I was talking to them, I wondered whether I would be as balanced and restrained as they were if the same had happened to my children.
Earlier this evening we heard comments about people dressing and the type of targets used. It made me think that my generation never dressed up, and I wondered why. Then I realised —it was because we did not need to. After all, what with the second world war, Palestine, Korea, Malaya, Cyprus, Aden and Kenya millions of guns were available to national service men and, of course, the men were dressed up anyway. I thought that that may have been part of the reason-the fact that my generation dressed up for real.


Then I thought again. I thought about my interests. My family have horses and would never dream of riding without being properly dressed up and equipped. My own interests are flying and gliding. Everyone I know who flies and glides—even those who fly the most modern light aircraft—seems to get dressed up in keeping with the activity being pursued. The modern fashion seems to be to get dressed up anyway.
When I was a young lad, I was a tennis player—I was not very good, only moderate —and I always thought that people who got dressed up and looked like tennis players could not play at all. Perhaps one should see the current fashion for dressing up in that light.
The worry that we are debating involves mainly illegally held guns and the fact that more people die because of such guns than was the case 20 or 30 years ago. I remind hon. Members of the days when there were literally millions of weapons available when service men took them home.
I have been convinced for many years that one cannot legislate to eliminate evil. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) spoke about 22 deaths in one of the Carolinas. I have been reading this week about children who have been stabbed to death in this country. Has anyone else read about them? I was reminded that the skean-dhu, if improperly used, is a lethal weapon. I am concerned that it should continue to be worn in public and would be worried if people were saying that it should be banned because, in the hands of an evil individual, it could be a lethal weapon.
This debate is much more important than many others. We are trying to strike a balance. I do not want United Kingdom competitors to be disadvantaged in an Olympic sport, whether or not that sport is one in which I indulge. We regularly win world championships in gliding. I know that hideous accidents and ghastly deaths occur in that sport. Of course I realise that there are differences between weapons that can be used for legal purposes and others such as aeroplanes, cars and gliders, which can be just as lethal in the wrong hands.

Mr. O'Neill: Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that, under the restrictions that will be imposed by the legislation that he is supporting, individuals who compete at the highest levels consider that it would be most unlikely that they could retain the capabilities that they have? He is arguing for the worst of all worlds, in which competitors would have the right to shoot but would not be capable of reaching the levels that they were previously able to achieve. That would be the height of frustration for those individuals. It would be much simpler to do away with all .22s on that basis if the hon. Gentleman is arguing from the point of view of sportsmen.

Mr. Walker: Was the hon. Gentleman present when I started my speech? He could not have been listening to what I said, or perhaps he did not hear what I said. Let me make my position clear. I said that I was not completely happy with the Bill. I would have settled for Lord Cullen's proposals. I do not believe that one should

automatically ban all guns just because a judgment has been made that other guns should be removed and banned. I am trying to make a case—

Mr. O'Neill: rose—

Mr. Walker: Will the hon. Gentleman just listen?
I believe that banning should be the last resort for almost any activity. One has to live in a society of balance, in which individuals pursue the activities that they wish to pursue, provided society accepts those activities on balance.
Hon. Members have talked about the balance of opinion in Scotland. Views in my constituency are very divided and I am sure that the situation is the same in every other constituency. Opinion is not united. In fact, the balance of letters that I have received runs at about eight to one against a total ban. I understand that many of those who have written have been motivated by a feeling that they will be disadvantaged. I accept that that is a good reason for people to write. Equally, I accept that those who are not motivated may not write.
I do not understand how anyone can make the claims that we have heard about views in Scotland. I do not make such claims about my constituency, where views are very divided. I think that my constituency is probably typical of large rural constituencies.
We have to consider the lessons of Lord Cullen's report. I believe that his proposals would have been less expensive. Hon. Members will not be surprised to learn that that appeals to me. I have always felt that we should watch public expenditure carefully. My personal view is that the compensation package will grow and grow.
I would prefer to give careful consideration to the failure of the weeding-out system. Everyone knows that Hamilton should have been found out. When the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) reads his speech, I think that he will regret some of his comments. I remind him that Lord Cullen recognised that some categories of people should not hold weapons. The letter that the hon. Member for Hamilton read out was a threatening letter. Anyone who writes threatening letters should not have a gun licence: it is as simple as that. If we approach the situation logically—as I hope we shall—we must conclude that that letter is evidence of why that man should not have his gun licence renewed. I think that the gun fraternity would agree.
I gather that my right hon. and learned Friend wants to speak. I shall therefore do what no other pressures have persuaded me to do and comply with the Government's wish for me to sit down.

Mrs. Alice Mahon: I support the amendment. I am completely unapologetic about saying that my overwhelming reason for supporting a total ban on handguns is emotional. I am not ashamed of that. Emotion is a valuable human asset that differentiates us from lower species. Logic also dictates that it is rational to support a total ban. The simple truth is that the events of Hungerford and Dunblane would not have happened if a total ban had been in place.
As a parent and grandparent. I have tried many times to imagine the pain and anguish felt by the parents of the slaughtered children of Dunblane. I have failed, because


even in my worst nightmares it is not possible for me to contemplate the pain that they must have gone through and must still be going through. I can say only that I felt any sympathy of mine to be inadequate. However, I can add my voice and my vote to support their aims. I can choose between a person's right to pursue a sport and a child's life. As the right hon. and learned Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor) said in his eloquent speech, how will we all feel if it happens again? I do not think that I could live with it if I did not vote for a complete ban tonight.
8.45 pm
To be honest, I have never liked guns or any culture that supports them. I do not like anything that promotes guns. I believe that the growth in the popularity of gun clubs has supported that culture. I have never bought guns for my children or my grandchildren and shooting is the last sport that I would watch at any level. I associate guns with killing people.

Mr. Winnick: If we have any feeling of guilt—my hon. Friend should have no individual feelings of guilt—should it not be a collective guilt among all of us who were here in 1987? It was primarily the Government who did not act, but we did not put sufficient pressure on them after the massacre at Hungerford. That is all the more reason why so many of us are determined not to repeat the same weakness and the same mistake now.

Mrs. Mahon: I believe that nothing other than a total ban on handguns will move us away from the gun culture. It is a small step, and we have a long way to go.
The measure is no reflection on the integrity of the majority of people who engage in this so-called sport. Of course the majority of them have nothing to do with the likes of Thomas Hamilton, but they would not be deprived of anything much if we diverted the country from the gun culture. That in itself is sufficient reason to support a ban. A different kind of society would be an incredible prize to pass on to the next generation.
The majority of my constituents want a total ban. Together with a Labour councillor from Calder Valley, Councillor McCafferty, I have been collecting signatures for a petition since July. We have collected thousands of signatures from people who believe that there should be a total ban on handguns. I have had just a handful of letters putting the case for guns— that is the absolute truth.
I am asking hon. Members to look into their hearts and to look at the unbearable sadness reflected in the eyes of the Dunblane parents every time we see them on the television. I have not met them, but I have felt their sadness from the television screens. Hon. Members must ask themselves whether they have the right to refuse a total ban. Our feelings and sympathies are inadequate. Tonight we can bond in common humanity with those parents by supporting the ban and trying to ensure that such an event never happens again.

Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I am pleased to be able to follow the hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon). While I believe her speech to have been entirely sincere, I profoundly disagree with her because I believe that legislation should be made on the basis of logic and sound judgment.
The amendments are about what should and should not be included in the Bill. I accept that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has a difficult and delicate balance to strike. However, I have one or two points for him to consider.
In logic, if one is to ban high-calibre pistols, one should also ban low-calibre .22 rimfire single-shot pistols. However, having fired many calibres of pistol in my life, I can tell my right hon. and learned Friend that there is all the difference in the world between a higher-calibre, centrefire pistol and a smaller-calibre, rimfire .22 pistol. The lethality and the accuracy of aim make all the difference in the world. If we intend to act in a reasonable way, we should allow some people who wish to enjoy a perfectly legitimate and safe sport to continue to use lower power and far less lethal pistols.
I am glad that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has chosen the balance that he has, but I want to return to what I said last Tuesday. Can my right hon. and learned Friend clarify for us how the Government are justified in going beyond Lord Cullen's recommendations? Here I centre on the amendments. If the Government believe that it is not practical for pistols to be dismantled, please will they tell my constituents and all gun-using folk why? All the expert advice I have received states that most pistols can be dismantled relatively easily. If they cannot be, we should legislate on the basis that they must be dismantled and make the gun manufacturers manufacture pistols that can be dismantled easily.
For years, all the advice on shotguns and firearms has been that one should separate the bits of the guns. That applies even to shotguns and firearms that are held legitimately in people's homes. The police ask owners what arrangements are being made to separate the bits of their guns—the bolt, the fore-end of the shotgun or whatever. The advice is to separate the bits so that, if a burglar steals part of the gun, it is useless. That is a completely practical and sensible way in which to deal with the matter.
I am wholly in favour of banning handguns from private homes. That would be a sensible measure, and it is outlined in the Bill. Cullen comes up with lots of recommendations on how to tighten security at gun clubs and checks on those who go to them. If a criminal broke into a gun club, he would not know what make and calibre of pistol were there. The idea of his being able to come up with replica bits is far-fetched. To ban handguns from private homes would be a sensible way forward, but if my right hon. and learned Friend and the Government feel that that is not a sensible way forward, they have an obligation to my constituents to spell out in clear language why.
As I made clear in my speech last week, if we intend to ban 160,000 weapons, the cost, even on an average of £300 each, will be £48 million. On an average of £500 each, the cost will be £80 million, not including compensation for associated equipment and everything else. Under the money resolution, we are now making provision for other compensation. I take that to mean that gunsmiths and others will be compensated for loss of trade.


Certain groups and gunsmiths who are well organised will be able to put in their claims with alacrity. I want to make sure that the individual who has one pistol that is banned will be adequately compensated. I believe that—

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Clifton-Brown: I was just about to come to the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). I believe that his remarks are entirely irrelevant. Who will do the valuation, on what basis will the valuation be done and how soon after the guns have been handed in will the compensation be paid?

Mr. Dalyell: I know nothing about the valuation of guns, but I suspect that the hon. Gentleman does. I am told that the value of some pistols is not £300, but £5,000 or £10,000.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman has made that point; he is absolutely correct. Some of the very latest pistols, which are almost totally plastic, can have a value running into thousands of pounds. The keenest pistol shots have been rushing out to buy the latest pistols not because of a macho culture but simply because they are more accurate than the ordinary metal pistol. People have been rushing out to buy them to improve the accuracy of their sport.
We are making it illegal for individuals to hold a whole class of handguns. Sadly, that class of handguns will be legal in many countries of the European Union. Already, some of those weapons are finding their way to the European Union because of people's fear that they will not be adequately compensated. Although what is happening is perfectly legal at the moment, it would be perfectly illegal once the Bill has been enacted for those guns to come back into this country. However, mark my words, Dame Janet, it will happen. We are laying an impossible task on the Customs and Excise and the courts because it will not be possible to keep out all illegally held guns. That will represent an on-going expense and difficulty of which we must be aware if it legislates in that respect.

Mr. Howard: We have had a distinguished debate, marked by high-quality speeches on both sides of the Chamber. I agree with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor) that none of us should be embarrassed by emotion in approaching this topic. The emotions it has aroused have been deep and intense, and they have touched us all. None of us needs to make any apology for having opened up our minds and our hearts to those emotions, but at the end of the day, as was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Sir M. Lennox-Boyd) and by many other hon. Members, each of us has to come to a rational decision. We have to exercise our judgment; I entirely accept that, in the end, the attitude that one takes and where one draws the line are matters of judgment.
We have to exercise our judgment in a way that we can defend rationally. That is the consideration that has influenced the Government as they have sought to

discharge this weighty responsibility. We have tried to put the protection of the public uppermost; that has been our first priority. However, it has always been my belief that, if it is possible to provide the public with the protection they need and deserve while allowing some limited legitimate shooting activity to continue, it is the Government's duty to take that course and to come to a conclusion that permits that result.
Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 would introduce a total ban. Amendments Nos. 15 and 16 would have a quite different effect, as was pointed out by the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell). The amendments themselves, as has been the case with every contribution to the debate, have exemplified the difference in approach and view expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber.
Before turning to the amendments that encompass a total ban, I shall deal with amendments Nos. 15 and 16 and explain the Government's position on the dismantling of weapons. There are a number of reasons why we believe that such an approach would not be viable.
First, we accept that there are many varieties of handgun that can readily be dismantled, but there are others for which it is a much more difficult operation. Lord Cullen records at paragraph 9.89 of his report that the British Shooting Sports Council drew his attention to the difficulties of dismantling and the evidence given to the Home Affairs Committee, including by the police. That assessment is confirmed by the advice that we received from the Forensic Science Service that, if certain classes of highly tuned competition pistols were dismantled regularly, their accuracy would be significantly damaged.
As the amendments exempt from the ban only guns that can readily be dismantled, they would have the effect of banning many low-calibre, highly specialised competition pistols. Therefore, they would have the unfortunate effect of preventing much of the British participation in international shooting competitions that would remain possible under the Bill.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: The Home Secretary is over-egging the pudding somewhat, as he has not given us the numbers, the proportion or the class of weapon that should be in that category.

9 pm

Mr. Howard: It is difficult to be precise about proportions and I make no apology for that. Paragraph 9.89 of the Cullen report shows some of the considerable difficulties that arise.
Our second reservation concerns security. As I explained on Second Reading, Lord Cullen envisaged that the frame of the gun—the main part with the trigger mechanism, the butt and the barrel—would remain in the possession of the owner and that the club secretary would keep the part that had been removed—typically, the slide of a semi-automatic or the cylinder of a revolver. That approach has the fundamental flaw that, to put it mildly, it would not be difficult for a gun owner to keep an illicit spare at home. That would enable him to reactivate the gun at any time. It is perfectly true that, in doing so, he would be breaking the law, but he would be unlikely to be discovered until it was too late. We cannot ignore that factor.


It is true that we are envisaging illegal behaviour, whereas the main thrust of the Bill is to deal with the problems that have arisen in respect of the legal use of handguns, but we cannot adopt such a rigid approach to that distinction that we can afford to ignore a risk simply because that risk would arise from illicit, illegal activity.

Mr. Mitchell: I argued that such behaviour could be controlled by the licensing system. Even if the Home Secretary does not accept that, there is no need to do it in the way that Lord Cullen suggested. The heavier, more important part of the gun could be kept at the club and the cylinder or slide taken home. That would be much more sensible.

Mr. Howard: That was not the option recommended by Lord Cullen, who no doubt had a reason for making his recommendation. However, I do not believe for a moment that the variant on that option that the hon. Gentleman now advances would avoid the difficulty that I have identified. The hon. Gentleman has to face up to it, as we have sought to do, and that is the reason for our approach to Lord Cullen's proposals.
The essence of amendments Nos. 15 and 16 is to permit high-calibre handguns to be exempted from the ban. Many hon. Members have argued that, if gun clubs can be made safe for .22 guns, they can be made safe for higher-calibre weapons. The question of calibre is important and I should like to spend a few moments on it so that the Government's position is fully understood.
As Lord Cullen pointed out, high-calibre handguns are not target guns in the true and original sense. They have been developed from military and police models. Most of the competitions in which they are used are quite different from those of traditional target shooting: they are based around quasi-military and police scenarios, often using targets representing human figures. The power of the gun and the ammunition used are essential features of many of those competitions.
The huge growth in such shooting in recent years—to which Lord Cullen referred in paragraph 9.44 of his report—
has led to the growth of combat shooting. It has led some shooters to don the trappings of combat, such as holsters and camouflage clothing. It has caused others to feel uneasy about what appears to be the use of guns as symbols of personal power.
Contrary to the implication posed by the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson), Lord Cullen was not talking about .22 calibre pistols in that passage of his report. He was talking about the higher-calibre handguns, which the Government propose to ban. We share the unease described by Lord Cullen at that point in his report.

Mr. Mellor: It is obvious that, if someone is looking for a symbol of power, he will go for the biggest gun on the market. What basis, apart from mere surmise, does my right hon. and learned Friend have for saying that people will not, in the context of an arrangement where only .22 pistols are available, transfer their affections to such things?

Mr. Howard: One has to look at the stringent security arrangements that we intend to put in place. I think that that is the answer to my right hon. and learned Friend's

question. One is able to distinguish—not solely for the reason that I have just been explaining, because as I said, there are other reasons too, to which I am about to come. The reason that I have given is one—but not the only—basis for a distinction, which the Government think it is important to maintain and which is at the heart of our approach.

Mr. George Robertson: rose—

Mr. Salmond: rose—

Mr. Howard: The hon. Member for Hamilton was wanting to get to his feet first, so I shall give way to him.

Mr. Robertson: The style, the shape and indeed the function of .22 semi-automatics—many people in the country and, I believe, in the House of Commons do not know that the Bill will legitimise semi-automatic .22 weapons—can be easily replicated for those who will be denied the larger-calibre guns. Has the Home Secretary's Department conducted any research since the announcement of the partial ban into what sort of trading is done? I was told by an eminent criminologist to whom I spoke this evening that the grey market trading of larger-calibre guns for .22 guns is already increasing at an alarming rate. The culture that Lord Cullen described in relation to higher-calibre guns is easily transferable to the new .22 weapons, which are featured in the publication that I showed the Home Secretary earlier.

Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman has made a completely unsupported assertion. Lord Cullen identified clearly in his report the trappings associated with the use of high-calibre weapons. The hon. Gentleman may make assertions about what might happen if some of those people—there may well be some—who use higher-calibre weapons wish to transfer to .22 weapons. My hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, North-West (Mr. Richards) read out was a very moving letter from a disabled constituent of his, who described the part that legitimate shooting plays in his life. I very much hope that my hon. Friend's constituent will transfer to .22 calibre shooting if that is not the kind of shooting in which he engages at present—it was not clear from his letter—so that, as a disabled person who derives legitimate satisfaction from that activity, he is able to continue to engage in that legitimate activity. That is one of the reasons why the Government have approached this matter in the way we have.

Mr. Salmond: Can we be absolutely correct on this? The Home Secretary not only admitted that, under his proposals, it would be quite possible for people to take the compensation money and buy new .22 semi-automatic handguns, but seemed to suggest that, in some cases, he would welcome that process. Would he really welcome people taking compensation money to buy new handguns?

Mr. Howard: I am saying that it is perfectly possible that that will happen; if it does and people want to continue to participate in what, when the Bill becomes law, will be a perfectly legitimate activity, of course they should be perfectly entitled to do that. They will have to carry out that activity under strict and stringent secure arrangements, which will be set up under the provisions


in the Bill. Those arrangements will put that activity on a completely different footing from that on which it takes place at the moment.
Two other reasons support the distinction that we make. First, high-calibre guns are particularly attractive to criminals and their storage in gun clubs in large numbers. whether dismantled or in one piece, would make gun clubs more attractive targets for theft. The second reason relates to the far greater power that those weapons have. The table in paragraph 9.49 of Lord Cullen's report, confirmed and corroborated a few moments ago by my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Clifton-Brown) from his personal experience, shows that a high-calibre handgun is four to six times more powerful than a .22 pistol. It uses a much larger bullet that travels with greater momentum and, unlike a .22 rimfire cartridge, the power of a high-calibre cartridge can be boosted by people who make up their ammunition at home, as do the majority of handgun shooters.

Mr. Jack Straw: We have all read paragraph 9.49, which indeed shows that the higher-calibre weapons are more powerful than lower-calibre .22 weapons, but is not the Home Secretary confusing the issue of power with whether the weapons are lethal? In paragraph 9.49, Lord Cullen says:
It should not be supposed that .22 rimfire cannot be as lethal as other ammunition … The BSSC pointed out ….22 cartridges would be as lethal as 9 mm.
Is not the point that, although .22 weapons are less powerful than higher-calibre weapons, they are just as lethal as higher-calibre weapons?

Mr. Howard: They are not just as lethal, although of course they can kill. The difference in the power is a very important factor, and, for all those reasons, we believe that the distinction at the heart of the Bill is viable and tenable.
I now turn to amendments Nos. 1 and 2. As I said at the outset, the Government's first priority is public safety. We are committed to doing whatever is needed to give the public the greater protection that they need and deserve in the aftermath of the dreadful events at Dunblane. The question for Parliament is whether that protection can be provided while allowing some legitimate use of handguns to continue. If the answer is yes, as I believe it is, the Government have a duty to act accordingly.
There are several reasons why we take that view. First, if there were to be a complete ban, there is a real danger that target shooting would take place outside the law, completely unregulated and not subject to any supervision or security. That would lead to a lessening of the protection of the public and is not a state of affairs that we should lightly contemplate. That is a serious argument that cannot be dismissed.
To all those hon. Members who take a different view on the complete ban and who have said to those of us who do not share that view, "How could you look yourselves in the face if, on some future occasion, some other awful event were to take place?"—with the implicit assumption that such an event would be a consequence of our failure to impose a total ban in this legislation—I say, "How could they look themselves in the face if that

dreadful event were the outcome of driving this activity beyond the bounds of the law?" That could happen, as was acknowledged by the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw).

Mr. O'Neill: rose—

Mr. Howard: I do not have time to give way.
One cannot avoid or shrink from that serious point.
Secondly, we should recognise that the shooting of .22 pistols has had an honourable place in Olympic competition since the early days of the modern Olympic games. It is a legitimate activity that is enjoyed by tens of thousands of law-abiding citizens. If we can allow it to continue and still give the public the extra protection that they deserve, we should do so.
We intend that .22 rimfire pistols should be used only under the most stringent conditions in licensed gun clubs. No one would be able to shoot with a .22 pistol until he had been judged fit to do so and had obtained a firearms certificate. The clubs in which the pistols would be kept would have to meet rigorous security criteria and satisfy the police that they were run by people of good character. No gun would be allowed to removed from a club, except on a police permit. When outside the club, the guns would normally have to be transported by a third party who was authorised by the police as suitable for the task.
9.15 pm
Some people have questioned whether pistol clubs can be made properly secure. The answer is that they can, but I accept that it will cost money and it will take time. I acknowledge that the Government's proposals will bear heavily on many decent law-abiding citizens who own handguns and use them for the purpose of sport, and I very much regret that. But our proposals will allow continued British participation in four of the five international target shooting disciplines run under the rules of the International Shooting Union, which include the Commonwealth games. British target shooters will be able to participate also in all the disciplines in the Olympic games that involve only .22 pistols.
Before we finally vote on this issue, let us all remember the clear and unambiguous judgment of Lord Cullen on this central question, which can be found in paragraph 9.113 of his report. The paragraph states:
I do not consider that the banning of handguns for target shooting or the banning of shooting clubs would be justified.
As I said at the outset of my remarks, amendments Nos. 15 and 16 would increase the extent to which those who at present own and use handguns would be allowed to continue to do so. Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 would impose a complete ban. I believe that the right course is that set out in the Bill, which would provide this country with some of the toughest gun controls in the world. They would be likely to reduce the handguns held in this country by 80 per cent. but would allow some legitimate target shooting to continue. I urge the Committee to reject the amendment.

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has made three assertions in replying to the debate. First, he asserted that the banning of all handguns would drive target shooting underground,


but I have not heard any police officer suggest that that would happen anywhere in the country. I have heard no one other than my right hon. and learned Friend suggest that that would happen. Secondly, my right hon. and learned Friend asserted that .22 guns were less effective. I say that that is an assertion, because it is not backed up in Lord Cullen's report or by the BSSC members who spoke for the shooters and were quoted in the Cullen report. Nor is it backed up by other arms experts quoted in the report.
Thirdly, my right hon. and learned Friend asserted that the gun culture will not transfer. He is right in saying that, in paragraph 9.44, Lord Cullen was talking about the larger handguns and people who use them for macho purposes or as a demonstration of power. But the Gun Control Network has evidence from four police authorities and from the Police Superintendents Association of England and Wales that this is precisely what is happening already. The people whom they describe as maverick handgunners, who are prone to the sort of behaviour about which Lord Cullen talks, are likely to transfer and are doing so already. I do not think that my right hon. and learned Friend has been able to knock down the points that I made in opening the debate.
I have evidence from my conversations with a number of Ministers and parliamentary private secretaries that, on a free vote tonight, they would vote for the banning of all handguns. How can the grieving parents of Dunblane leave the campaign here when they know that they would get their way on a free vote? One day, when the House is allowed a free vote on the matter, they will get their way.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 281, Noes 306.

Division No. 15]
[9.19 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Callaghan, Jim


Adams, Mrs Irene
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)


Ainger, Nick
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)


Allen, Graham
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)


Alton, David
Campbell-Savours, D N


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Canavan, Dennis


Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Cann, Jamie


Ashdown, Paddy
Carlile, Alex (Montgomery)


Ashton, Joseph
Chisholm, Malcolm


Austin-Walker, John
Church, Ms Judith


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Clapham, Michael


Barnes, Harry
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)


Barron, Kevin
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)


Battle, John
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)


Bayley, Hugh
Clelland, David


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Bell, Stuart
Coffey, Ms Ann


Benn, Tony
Cohen, Harry


Bennett, Andrew F
Cook, Robin (Livingston)


Benton, Joe
Corbett, Robin


Bermingham, Gerald
Corbyn, Jeremy


Berry, Roger
Corston, Ms Jean


Betts, Clive
Cousins, Jim


Blair, Tony
Cox, Tom


Blunkett, David
Cummings, John


Boateng, Paul
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Bradley, Keith
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try SE)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Cunningham, Ms R (Perth Kinross)


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Dafis, Cynog


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Dalyell, Tam


Burden, Richard
Darling, Alistair


Byers, Stephen
Davidson, Ian


Caborn, Richard
Davies, Bryan (Oldham C)





Davies, Chris (Littleborough)
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)
Jowell, Ms Tessa


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Kaufman, Gerald


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)
Keen, Alan


Denham, John
Kennedy, Charles (Ross C & S)


Dewar, Donald
Kennedy, Mrs Jane (Broadgreen)


Dicks, Terry
Khabra, Piara S


Dixon, Don
Kiffoyle, Peter


Dobson, Frank
Kirkwood, Archy


Donohoe, Brian H
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eccles)


Dowd, Jim
Lewis, Terry


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Liddell, Mrs Helen


Dykes, Hugh
Litherland, Robert


Eagle, Ms Angela
Livingstone, Ken


Eastham, Ken
Lloyd, Tony (Stretfd)


Etherington, Bill
Llwyd, Elfyn


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Loyden, Eddie


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Lynne, Ms Liz


Fatchett, Derek
McAllion, John


Faulds, Andrew
McAvoy, Thomas


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
McCartney, Ian (Makerfld)


Flynn, Paul
Macdonald, Calum


Foster, Derek
McFall, John


Foster, Don (Bath)
McKelvey, William


Foulkes, George
Mackinlay, Andrew


Fraser, John
McLeish, Henry


Fyfe, Mrs Maria
McMaster, Gordon


Galbraith, Sam
McNamara, Kevin


Galloway, George
MacShane, Denis


Garrett, John
McWilliam, John


Gerrard, Neil
Madden, Max


Godman, Dr Norman A
Maddock, Mrs Diana


Godsiff, Roger
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Golding, Mrs Llin
Mallon, Seamus


Gordon, Ms Mildred
Mandelson, Peter


Graham, Thomas
Marek, Dr John


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Martin, Michael J (Springburn)


Grocott, Bruce
Martlew, Eric


Gunnell, John
Maxton, John


Hain, Peter
Meacher, Michael


Hall, Mike
Meale, Alan


Hanson, David
Mellor, David


Hardy, Peter
Michael, Alun


Harman, Ms Harriet
Michie, Bill (Shefld Heeley)


Harvey, Nick
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)


Hattersley, Roy
Milburn, Alan


Henderson, Doug
Miller, Andrew


Hendron, Dr Joe
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Heppell, John
Morgan, Rhodri


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Morley, Elliot


Hinchliffe, David
Morris, Alfred (Wy'nshawe)


Hodge, Ms Margaret
Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Home Robertson, John
Morris, John (Aberavon)


Hood, Jimmy
Mowlam, Ms Marjorie


Hoon, Geoffrey
Mudie, George


Howarth, Alan (Stratfd-on-A)
Mullin, Chris


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Murphy, Paul


Howells, Dr Kim
Oakes, Gordon


Hoyle, Doug
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
O'Brien, William (Normanton)


Hughes, Robert (Ab'd'n N)
O'Hara, Edward


Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)
Olner, Bill


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
O'Neill, Martin


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Orme, Stanley


Hume, John
Pearson, Ian


Hutton, John
Pendry, Tom


Ingram, Adam
Pickthall, Colin


Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampst'd)
Pike, Peter L


Jackson, Mrs Helen (Hillsborough)
Powell, Sir Raymond (Ogmore)


Jamieson, David
Prentice, Mrs B (Lewisham E)


Jenkins, Brian D (SE Staffs)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Jones, Barry (Alyn & D'side)
Prescott, John


Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)
Primarolo, Ms Dawn


Jones, Dr L (B'ham Selly Oak)
Purchase, Ken






Quin, Ms Joyce
Stott, Roger


Radice, Giles
Strang, Dr Gavin


Randall, Stuart
Straw, Jack


Raynsford, Nick
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Reid, Dr John
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Rendel, David
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Robertson, George (Hamilton)
Thurnham, Peter


Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)
Timms, Stephen


Roche, Mrs Barbara
Tipping, Paddy


Rogers, Allan
Touhig, Don


Rooker, Jeff
Trickett, Jon


Rooney, Terry
Turner, Dennis


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Tyler, Paul


Rowlands, Ted
Vaz, Keith


Ruddock, Ms Joan
Wallace, James


Salmond, Alex
Walley, Ms Joan


Sedgemore, Brian
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Sheerman, Barry
Wareing, Robert N


Sheldon, Robert
Watson, Mike


Shore, Peter
Welsh, Andrew


Simpson, Alan
Wicks, Malcolm


Skinner, Dennis
Wigley, Dafydd


Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)
Williams, Alan (Swansea W)


Smith, Chris (Islington S)
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Wilson, Brian


Snape, Peter
Winnick, David


Soley, Clive
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Spearing, Nigel
Worthington, Tony


Spellar, John
Wray, Jimmy


Squire, Ms R (Dunfermline W)
Wright, Dr Tony


Steel, Sir David
Tellers for the Ayes:


Steinberg, Gerry
Mr. Robert Ainsworth and


Stevenson, George
Mr. Greg Pope.




NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Burt, Alistair


Alexander, Richard
Butcher, John


Alison, Michael (Selby)
Butler, Peter


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Butterfill, John


Arness, David
Carlisle, John (Luton N)


Ancram, Michael
Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Linc'n)


Arbuthnot, James
Carrington, Matthew


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Carttiss, Michael


Atkins, Robert
Channon, Paul


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Chapman, Sir Sydney


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Clappison, James


Baker, Kenneth (Mole V)
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochf'd)


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)


Baldry, Tony
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Coe, Sebastian


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Colvin, Michael


Batiste, Spencer
Congdon, David


Bellingham, Hanry
Conway, Derek


Bendall, Vivian
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F)


Beresford, Sir Paul
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Biffen, John
Cope, Sir John


Body, Sir Richard
Corrnack, Sir Patrick


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Couchman, James


Booth, Hartley
Cran, James


Boswell, Tom
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Curry, David


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Davies,Quentin (Stamf'd)


Bowden, Sir Andrew
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Bowis, John
Day, Stephen


Boyson, Sir Rhodes
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Brandreth, Gyles
Devlin, Tim


Brazier, Julian
Dorrell, Stephen


Bright, Sir Graham
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Brooke, Peter
Dover, Den


Brown, Michael (Brigg Cl'thorpes)
Duncan Smith, Iain


Browning, Mrs Angela
Dunn, Bob


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Durant, Sir Anthony


Budgen, Nicholas
Eggar, Tim


Burns, Simon
Elletson, Harold





Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Evans, Nigel (Ribble V)
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Kynoch, George


Evennett, David
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Faber, David
Lamont, Norman


Fabricant, Michael
Lang, Ian


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Fishburn, Dudley
Legg, Barry


Forman, Nigel
Leigh, Edward


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark


Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)
Lester, Sir Jim (Broxtowe)


Forth, Eric
Lidington, David


Fowler, Sir Norman
Lilley, Peter


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Lloyd, Sir Peter (Fareham)


Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)
Lord, Michael


Freeman, Roger
Luff, Peter


French, Douglas
Lyell, Sir Nicholas


Fry, Sir Peter
McCrea, Rev William


Gale, Roger
MacGregor, John


Gallie, Phil
MacKay, Andrew


Gardiner, Sir George
Maclean, David


Garel-Jones, Tristan
McLoughlin, Patrick


Garnier, Edward
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Gill, Christopher
Madel, Sir David


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Maitland, Lady Olga


Goodlad, Alastair
Major, John


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Malone, Gerald


Gorman, Mrs Teresa.
Mans, Keith


Gorst, Sir John
Marland, Paul


Grant, Sir Anthony (SW Cambs)
Marlow, Tony


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Grylls, Sir Michael
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Gummer, John
Mayhew, Sir Patrick


Hague, William
Merchant, Piers


Hamilton, Sir Archibald
Mills, lain


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Hampson, Dr Keith
Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)


Hanley, Jeremy
Moate, Sir Roger


Hannam, Sir John
Molyneaux, Sir James


Hargreaves, Andrew
Monro, Sir Hector


Harris, David
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Haselhurst, Sir Alan
Moss, Malcolm


Hawkins, Nick
Needham, Richard


Hawksley, Warren
Nelson, Anthony


Hayes, Jerry
Neubert, Sir Michael


Heald, Oliver
Newton, Tony


Heath, Sir Edward
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Norris, Steve


Hendry, Charles
Onslow, Sir Cranley


Heseltine, Michael
Oppenheim, Phillip


Hicks, Sir Robert
Ottaway, Richard


Higgins, Sir Terence
Page, Richard


Hill, Sir James (Southampton Test)
Paice, James


Horam, John
Paisley, Rev Ian


Hordern, Sir Peter
Patnick, Sir Irvine


Howard, Michael
Patten, John


Howell, David (Guildf'd)
Pattie, Sir Geoffrey


Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)
Pawsey, James


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensb'ne)
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Hunter, Andrew
Pickles, Eric


Hurd, Douglas
Porter, David


Jack, Michael
Portillo, Michael


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Powell, William (Corby)


Jenkin, Bernard (Colchester N)
Rathbone, Tim


Jessel, Toby
Redwood, John


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Renton, Tim


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Richards, Rod


Jones, Robert B (W Herts)
Riddick, Graham


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Rifkind, Malcolm


Key, Robert
Robathan, Andrew


King, Tom
Roberts, Sir Wyn


Kirkhope, Timothy
Robertson, Raymond S (Ab'd'n S)


Knapman, Roger
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)






Roe, Mrs Marion
Temple-Morris, Peter


Ross, William (E Lond'y)
Thomason, Roy


Rowe, Andrew
Thompson, Sir Donald (Calder V)


Rumbold, Dame Angela
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Ryder, Richard
Thomton, Sir Malcolm


Sackville, Tom
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Sainsbury, Sir Timothy
Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)


Scott, Sir Nicholas
Tracey, Richard


Shaw, David (Dover)
Tredinnick, David


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Trend, Michael


Shephard, Mrs Gillian
Trotter, Neville


Shepherd, Sir Colin (Heref'd)
Twinn, Dr lan


Shersby, Sir Michael
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Sims, Sir Roger
Waldegrave, William


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Walden, George


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfld)
Waller, Gary


Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)
Ward, John


Soames, Nicholas
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Speed, Sir Keith
Waterson, Nigel


Spencer, Sir Derek
Watts, John


Spicer, Sir Jim (W Dorset)
Wells, Bowen


Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)
Wheeler, Sir John


Spink, Dr Robert
Whitney, Ray


Spring, Richard
Whittingdale, John


Sproat, lain
Widdecombe, Miss Ann


Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Stanley, Sir John
Wilkinson, John


Steen, Anthony
Willetts, David


Stephen, Michael
Wilshire, David


Stern, Michael
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Gongleton)


Stewart, Allan
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfld)


Streeter, Gary
Wolfson, Mark


Sumberg, David
Yeo, Tim


Sweeney, Walter
Young, Sir George


Tapsell, Sir Peter



Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Tellers for the Noes:


Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Mr. Timothy Wood and


Taylor, Sir Teddy
Mr. Michael Bates.

Question accordingly negatived.

Miss Widdecombe: I beg to move amendment No. 20, in clause 1, page 1, line 16, after 'pistol', insert a muzzle-loading gun'.

The Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also the following: Government amendments Nos. 21 to 23.
New clause 1—Muzzle-loaders—
`.The authority of the Secretary of State is not required by virtue of subsection (1)(aba) of section 5 of the 1968 Act for a person to have in his possession, or to purchase or acquire, or to sell or transfer, a firearm if he is authorised by a firearm certificate to have in his possession, or to purchase or acquire, a firearm and it is a firearm which can only be loaded from the muzzle end.'.
New clause 2—Exemption of muzzle-loaders—
`.The authority of the Secretary of State is not required by virtue of subsection (1) (aba) of section 5 of the 1968 Act for a person to have in his possession, or to purchase or acquire, or to sell or transfer, a firearm if he is authorised by a firearm certificate to have in his possession, or to purchase or acquire a firearm which is loaded at the muzzle end of each chamber or of the barrel and is designed to be used with black powder.'.

Miss Widdecombe: rose—

The Chairman: Order. I ask hon. Members to leave quietly if they are going, or to sit quietly if they intend to listen.

Miss Widdecombe: The intention of the amendments is to ensure that muzzle-loading pistols are not caught by the general prohibition that we are proposing.

Sir Michael Spicer: Will my hon. Friend specify whether the terms of the amendment

will include reproduction muzzle-loaders, because the date of manufacture seems less important than the type of weapon? A tremendous number of people are engaged in the sport of muzzle-loading gun competitions, and reproduction muzzle-loaders are just as important as originals to them.

Miss Widdecombe: I assure my hon. Friend that I shall give the definition of such weapons, including replicas, in due course.
As I said, the intention of the amendments is to ensure that muzzle-loading pistols are not caught by the general prohibition that we are proposing. I should explain to the Committee precisely what is meant by a muzzle-loader and why we believe that they can be safely excluded from the ban. The definition of a muzzle-loader is given in our amendment No. 23, which states it is any gun
which is designed to be loaded at the muzzle end"—
that is the end from which the bullet is fired "with a loose charge" and a ball "or other missile".
Those guns are invariably either designs of guns that date from the 18th century or modern replicas of such guns. If they are genuinely old and are not fired they will be exempt anyway from all control by virtue of the general exemption for antiques, which is not changed by the Bill. If they are fired under the present law, they require a firearms certificate and our amendment would not change that.
The example of a muzzle-loader that will be familiar to most people is a flintlock. Like all muzzle-loaders, it is prepared for firing by pouring loose gunpowder into the barrel, tamping it down and then dropping down a lead ball, which is held in place by a wad. That process may take as long as half a minute or more, and even then it is quite uncertain as to whether the gun will fire first time. Those guns, either originals dating from the Napoleonic wars or earlier, or replicas, as mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for South Worcestershire (Sir M. Spicer), are fired by enthusiasts, who may fire their guns at targets or use blanks when firing them in historical re-enactments.
Muzzle-loading weapons are not a danger to public safety. They take a long time to reload and they are hardly ever used in crime. We believe that they can safely be exempted from the general ban on handguns and from the requirement to keep them in clubs. People will still need a firearms certificate for those weapons, and the tighter regime for issuing firearms certificates, proposals for which are included in the Bill, such as requiring two referees, will apply to individuals who wish to hold a firearms certificate for muzzle-loading firearms.
I urge the Committee to support the amendment. I also urge my hon. Friends who have proposed new clauses 1 and 2 to withdraw them on the basis that our amendments achieve the same objective. Indeed, the new clauses would keep muzzle-loaders within the general prohibition.

Mr. Couchman: I should be grateful if my hon. Friend said something about the storage of muzzle-loaders. Will they be caught up in the exacting and onerous regulations that will apply to .22 pistols, for example?

Miss Widdecombe: No. As my hon. Friend knows, .22 pistols are to be confined to secure clubs; those rules will not apply to muzzle-loaders.


Although my hon. Friend's new clauses seek to achieve the same ends, in fact they would not exempt muzzle-loaders from the prohibition—the new clauses would keep them within it, but allow them to be held on certificate. I hope that we have managed to demonstrate that muzzle-loaders are not a menace to public safety and that their exemption may safely be proposed.

Sir Teddy Taylor: I should like to make some brief remarks. First, I am sorry that the wording of new clause 1 is not quite right, but I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for accepting the principle behind it.
I have one simple point. We had an impassioned debate on the issue of a general ban and a decision was made a few minutes ago. I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the Committee will now concentrate on making the legislation workable and sensible. Amendment. No. 20 is certainly an important contribution to that objective. On the other hand, my hon. Friend the Minister will realise that there are two other points relating to the amendment that we shall discuss shortly and that must be faced up to in the same way.
The Government are anxious that guns should not be kept at home, but I hope that they realise that that objective could be secured by having the partial storage of weapons in clubs. That would save a great deal of unnecessary expenditure and would also remove a major security risk, which many of feel would arise if guns were to be stored in clubs.
The next issue to be addressed is a sensible timetable. Whatever Act of Parliament we pass, we want to ensure that the timetable is sensible and appropriate in the circumstances.
Finally, bearing in mind what the Government said about competitors, I hope that they realise that the present arrangements for notifying chief constables about the removal of guns for competition will be difficult to work out, especially in the case of individuals who engage in many competitions. In the Southend area, we have a splendid shot, Brent Smith, who has won two silver medals and a bronze medal at the Commonwealth games. He attends many competitive events and it seems rather ridiculous that he will have to go through the whole process of putting in an application to the police every time he wants to take part in a competition.
In the circumstances, I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for accepting the principle of new clause 1. That is a major step forward. I hope that, in the same way, she will consider my other points to make sure that the Bill is a sensible and workable piece of legislation that will achieve the Government's objective without causing unnecessary distress and inconvenience.

Sir Jerry Wiggin: I add my gratitude to that my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor). I accept that the Government draftsman is likely to draft a better amendment than we are, but it says something about the speed with which the Bill was prepared that anyone should have included muzzle-loaders in the first place.
The exemption will assist a large number of people who enjoy the hobby of muzzle-loader shooting. The weapons are extremely unlikely to be used in crime and many

thousands of people use blanks for re-enactments. People are having the guns manufactured for their own entertainment.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister of State and am happy not to press my new clause.

Mr. Couchman: I am delighted to hear from my hon. Friend the Minister of State that muzzle-loaders will be exempt from the bans promulgated in the Bill. It will be important to my constituents who, almost every Sunday, re-enact Napoleonic battles at Fort Amherst. There are several historic spots within the Medway towns, including Fort Amherst, Upnor castle, the historic dockyard and Rochester castle, where there are regular re-enactments.
The muzzle-loading guns have no potential for crime: they take a long time to load and most of the people who fire them use blanks and do not load the lead ball. Even if someone has a licence to own a muzzle-loader, they cannot buy ammunition for it. Muzzle-loaders are mostly used in public displays, for education and entertainment.
I welcome the exemption, particularly as it includes replicas of historic guns, which were already exempt under the antique guns rule. The people of the Medway towns do not lie awake at night worrying that they are going to be taken apart by the flintlock pistols, horse pistols or cannons of the Medway re-enactment societies. The Chatham and Gillingham Volunteer Artillery', the Chasseurs de Cevennes, the 42nd Highlanders and the First Foot Guards will be eternally grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister of State.

Mr. Dalyell: May we take it from the gist of the amendment that the Sealed Knot has nothing to worry about?

Miss Widdecombe: Yes.

Mr. Peter Griffiths: Will my hon. Friend the Minister of State accept the gratitude of those who use muzzle-loading firearms for sport, usually under the general title of black powder shooting? Will she also accept my personal gratitude for showing evidence of the Government's willingness to be flexible when sound cases were put to them during their discussions on this difficult subject? Strong emotions have been aroused and it has not always been recognised that the Government have been willing to listen. They have the gratitude of those serious shooters who have benefited from the amendments.

Mr. Henderson: The hon. Member for Portsmouth. North (Mr. Griffiths) will be able to judge whether the Government have listened to hon. Members and others when we see the final report to the House after 28 November. The Opposition support the Government's amendments; we support the exemption of muzzle-loading guns, subject to the endorsement of the local consumer standards officers. The most likely danger from a muzzle-loading gun is that one might blow oneself up rather than anyone else. If the consumer standards officers are satisfied, I think that the Committee will be satisfied.
Amendment agreed to.


Amendments made: No. 21, in page 1, line 20, at end insert—
`(3A) In paragraph (ad) (smooth-bore revolver guns), for the words from "loaded" to the end there shall be substituted the words "a muzzle-loading gun".'
No. 22, in page 1, line 21, leave out second 'subsection' and insert 'subsections'.— [Miss Widdecombe.]

Sir Jerry Wiggin: I beg to move amendment No. 9, in page 1, line 22, after 'any', insert 'readily'.
Some .22 rifles have detachable butt-stocks—there is one very popular one—and they could be regarded as short weapons if measured when the stock is detached. It is apparently impossible to use them when the butt is detached except in a test rig, and by inserting the word "readily" we feel that we would obtain our point. I hope that the Government will be able to accept this modest amendment.

Miss Widdecombe: I am afraid that I must urge the Committee to resist the amendment. The effect of the amendment would be to clarify that butt-stocks should be disregarded in measuring length only if they are readily detachable. I regret that, after much thought, we have concluded that we cannot accept that definition. Adding a butt-stock to a handgun can change its essential characteristic and in some cases, in terms of aim, make it more closely resemble a rifle.
The amendment gives rise to the further problem of what is meant by "detachable". Is it intended that it should include only butt-stocks which can be removed without the use of tools? Should it also include those which require a screwdriver to remove? It is true that some butt-stocks can be easily detached while others require more effort, but the point remains that, if a butt-stock can be removed at all, it should be disregarded for the purposes of measuring the overall length of the weapon.
I regret that I must invite the Committee to reject the amendment.
Amendment negatived.
Amendment made: No. 23, in clause 1, page 1, line 24, at end insert—
'(9) Any reference in this section to a muzzle-loading gun is a reference to a gun which is designed to be loaded at the muzzle end of the barrel or chamber with a loose charge and a separate ball (or other missile):.—[Miss Widdecombe.]
Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Brooke: I shall be brief. The harbinger of my concerns was contained in my intervention in the speech of my hon. Friend the Minister of State earlier. My remarks were addressed, through you, Mr. Morris, to my hon. Friend, because the Government have indicated that part of their support for the .22 concession is to allow our participation in the Olympic games to continue.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary answered my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) wholly properly, but he did not give a complete answer to the question whether the Home Secretary realised that people had to practise with their own pistols. He was asked whether he understood that, to compete at county or national level—one is

necessary for the other—one needed to be able to train and practise with one's own pistol. He did not specifically answer that question, so I return to it.
Do the Government realise that, at the highest level—county level leading to national —about 80 per cent. of one's training and practice occurs away from the club where one may do one's shooting, generally in one's home, on what the professionals call the kinasthetic element of the preparation? That will involve, at the highest level, at least two evenings a week in one's home.
There are serious separate concerns about training weekends. At the highest level, one must attend a training weekend three weekends out of four. Those are not competitions allowed for in the Bill; they are a separate condition. Although I shall not press my hon. Friend for specific answers on those subjects tonight, I want to say that, in addition to the ones that I have mentioned, there are concerns about batch ammunition tested for one's own pistol, and about the movement of the pistol, especially travelling to international championships, which my hon. Friend will realise are a necessary qualification for the Olympics.
There are six international championships between Olympics, and one must attend every one. It necessarily becomes a matter of concern how one is going to transport one's pistol to them.
I shall write to my hon. Friend on these matters. All I ask for tonight is a stated recognition that a competitor at that level must practise and train with his own pistol, and that no other pistol would be any good for that purpose. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary did not answer the question when it was put to him earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle, but it is important that everyone is clear that the Government realises that that is the case.

Mr. Dalyell: There have been frequent references to the costs of compensation during the past five hours, and I think that clause 1 stand part is the appropriate occasion to repeat that reference.
Although various assertions have been made, the Government have said little or nothing. I ask for the Minister's attention, as I want to ask her a direct question. The Home Office must have some idea, in round figures, what compensation will be involved. I refuse to believe that the Treasury has not asked some questions. The figures vary from my estimate of £ 1.2 billion to £500 million from some Conservative Members to between £ 25 million and £50 million. What are the rough estimates of the Home Office?
The question asked by the right hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) and repeated several times since is, who will do the valuing? Valuers can have vastly different ideas of what guns might fetch. Is it to be a market value or an antique value? In other areas, the discrepancies in valuations by the great auction houses are mind-boggling.

Mr. Andrew Hargreaves: I would declare an interest if that were appropriate, having worked as a fine arts auctioneer. I am sure that the Government would be only too happy to avail themselves of the services, for nothing, of such experts, so that a proper value can be put on the firearms. In any case, the Government could recoup some of the costs by auctioning


some of the finer firearms, which otherwise would have to be destroyed, in those countries where there are no restrictions.

Mr. Dalyell: If the hon. Gentleman is right, it is enormously significant that valuers are prepared to give their services free. In my experience, valuers do not come cheap. If they are prepared to give their services free—[Interruption.] Some of the hon. Gentleman's colleagues are shaking their knowledgeable heads. I suspect that it is highly unlikely that valuers would volunteer their services free.
I want to put my question as succinctly as possible. What is Home Office thinking on the whole question of valuation? Are we talking about £1 billion-plus or £100 million-minus?

Mr. Allason: I am grateful for being able to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. During the last few hours, several assertions have been made that I want to correct. The first and most damaging is that Thomas Hamilton had legally held handguns. It is perfectly clear to anyone who has read Lord Cullen's report that he duped the police over 20 years—in respect not only of the firearms he held, but of the ammunition.
Lord Cullen is extremely critical of the way that the police supervised the issuing of firearms. Plenty of people—at least three—in Central Scotland police were perfectly aware of Hamilton's character, and they wrote reports showing that. Detective Sergeant Hughes analysed the man's personality as unstable and untrustworthy. The recommendation that he should not ever be granted a firearms certificate is there to be seen.
The real problem is that those reports did not get into the criminal intelligence file. We now know that the officer in 1995 who was responsible for issuing the last renewal was wholly unaware of the existence of those documents, which are absolutely damning.
My heart goes out to the Dunblane parents. It also goes out to the police officers who had to investigate Hamilton, who had very well-founded doubts about his stability and who wrote about those doubts—which were then completely overlooked by their more senior colleagues. I am not surprised that one senior officer resigned from that force. There should have been other resignations.

Mr. Michael Colvin: My hon. Friend will have noticed that Mr. Hamilton's membership of a gun club has been mentioned several times. Does he agree that Hamilton's membership was exceedingly tenuous? He may, nominally, have been a member of the local gun club, but he never attended it or took part in any of its activities.

10 pm

Mr. Allason: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The police were consistently duped by Hamilton. He claimed to have participated in many competitions when he was challenged about the amount of ammunition that he was accumulating, but no checks were made. The fact is that he had not participated in any of the competitions.

Mr. O'Neill: I have spoken to some of the people who were members of the gun clubs to which Hamilton

belonged, and one or two of them thought that he was the type of man who was sufficiently devious to be able to con most authorities. They would not claim to be either hostile or amicable to Hamilton, because they realised that he was a loner. They said that, because of his personality traits, he would be capable of misleading officers.
I have much sympathy for the police who were involved at all levels in the case. I spoke at length with senior members of Central Scotland police, and I was convinced that dealing with Hamilton was a dreadful job. In Committee, we must try to establish a better method of licensing, so that we can ensure that such a tragedy never again occurs. Hamilton was a most devious and effective quasi-litigant, and I shall put it no more strongly than that.

Mr. Allason: Although I accept the hon. Gentleman's point that Hamilton was devious, Detective Sergeant Hughes realised that fact, and his report was absolutely damning. Hamilton may have been able to dupe very many people, but he did not fool Detective Sergeant Hughes.
Revocation is one of the key issues and difficulties—I am not judging the police after the event, because this is precisely what Lord Cullen's report states—that is perpetually at the back of police officers' minds. It had to be assumed that, if an applicant appealed and obtained a judicial review, the weight of evidence would be in his favour. One of the conclusions to which anyone reading the Cullen report would come is that there could be a straightforward way in which to amend the law to clarify the issue of revoking a firearms certificate and to make the judge's role crystal clear—whether it is administrative or judicial.
There was confusion not only in English but in Scots law, and in the precedents. The situation was confusing, and I readily accept that the police felt that their hands were tied. They believed that, unless they had good, strong evidence that could be presented in court—the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) is right—a devious man such as Hamilton had everything going for him.
My fear is that by, rejecting Lord Cullen's report—that is what the Government have done by rejecting its recommendations and going much further—we shall have disadvantaged many people who have been wholly legitimate firearms holders. I greatly regret the slurs made against legitimate firearms holders, who have made legitimate applications to the police and who have been able to demonstrate that they are fit and proper people to own a firearm.
One constituent has had a firearms certificate for 27 years. He is not a strange man dressing up in combat uniform or firing at human figures. He and many friends have participated in a legitimate sport for 27 years, and he had every expectation of being able to continue doing so for a further 27 years.
The House has persuaded the Government that there should be proper compensation for such an individual, but he pointed out to me that the ancillary equipment is sometimes more expensive than the weapon itself. I am glad that the Government have extended compensation to cover ancillary equipment. My constituent has £3,000-worth of loading equipment to make ammunition.


That is clearly a substantial investment, but what are we to say to the firearms dealer who has £9,000, £10,000 or £15,000-worth of security equipment in his house?

The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. The hon. Gentleman is drifting in and out of clause 1. There are many clauses on compensation and licensing. The hon. Gentleman must address his remarks exclusively to clause 1 stand part.

Mr. Allason: I am grateful, Mr. Morris, for your guidance, forbearance and patience. I did not wish to repeat what I said on Second Reading.
I think that the House made a terrible mistake shortly after the Hungerford incident. I urge the Committee not to allow clause 1 to stand part.

Sir David Steel: I have some sympathy with the remarks of the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason).
The right hon. and learned Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor) rightly said that one did not have to come from Dunblane to empathise with the parents of the tragic victims of Thomas Hamilton. As I said on another occasion, I was married in Dunblane cathedral, and I empathise with the people of Dunblane for that reason.
I have no doubt that public and press opinion, especially in Scotland, is very much in favour of the complete ban on handguns that was narrowly voted down a few moments ago. Yet, like the hon. Member for Torbay, I have a considerable sense of unease about the way in which we are legislating in haste in the wake of this tragedy. Let us be clear about this: we are denying a lawful sport to a significant but perhaps not substantial minority of our population. That is always a dangerous and difficult road to trail.
The right hon. and learned Member for Putney failed to answer one question put to him in an intervention: what would have happened if, instead of using a handgun, Thomas Hamilton had sawn off the barrels of a shotgun, cut down the butt, concealed it about his person, and then fired on the children? He could have caused just about the same damage. Would the House now solemnly be deciding to ban the possession of shotguns? That would be an unthinkable proposition for the management of the countryside. The passage of the Bill gives us something to be uneasy about.
I was amazed that so many people took up stances before they could possibly have read the Cullen report. I did not come to my conclusions until I had taken the trouble to study it carefully over the weekend after publication. I have also met representatives of the shooting club in my constituency. You have rightly pointed out that compensation is an issue for later, Sir Michael, but I should like to say in passing that, in the past year, the club has spent £40,000—including £8,000 of public money from the Sports Council —on a legitimate sport.
There is no way in which the club will qualify to be able to continue under the provisions of clause 1. There is no question of it being able to create the secure premises that the legislation will require. A club with 140 members, that has raised a lot of money for its attractive site north of Galashiels, is to go out of business.
I think also of the man in Peebles whom I have visited. He has a national—indeed, international—reputation as a repairer of all types of gun. His livelihood will cease. What about his children as Christmas approaches? That is what he asked me.
We should be strongly aware, as the Bill passes through this House and the other place, that we are taking away people's livelihoods and people's pastimes—activities that have been legitimate hitherto.
I voted for a complete ban, on the reasoning given by many pistol shooters in my constituency —it is not a universal view, but one expressed by many—that the Government scheme set out in clause 1 is expensive and unworkable. A total ban on handguns is a more honest and workable approach than trying to make a distinction between one type of handgun and another, which will leave the sport in such a situation that it will be possible only for the very rich to participate legally in future, I imagine.
Like the hon. Member for Torbay, my gut feeling is that the Government would have done better to rest on the Cullen report, and then by all means put other alternatives to the House on a free vote, as my hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) argued. Hon. Members would then have had the opportunity that many wished for, to vote for a ban or some form of partial ban.
By the way in which the Bill has been divided in two, we are giving the public the impression that the important issue in the Cullen report was the banning of a certain type of handgun. It was not. The important parts of the report were about certification. Those issues have been sent upstairs to a Committee because they are not considered important enough for us to debate on the Floor of the House, but those issues are crucial.
To pick up on what the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) said, a careful reading of the Cullen report leaves me with no doubt that Thomas Hamilton should never have had a firearms certificate. Though the deputy chief constable who was ultimately responsible and who did not follow up Sergeant Hughes's report has honourably resigned, Lord Cullen makes the important point that, under the law as it stands in Scotland—I assume that the same is true in England—he could have won his certificate back on appeal even if his application had been refused.
We should be concentrating on aspects of the certification laws rather than on the mechanics of who owns a handgun. I do not want to stray out of order, but I am concerned that the Bill fails to improve even the laws on shotgun certification. As a Member of Parliament, I have great anxiety about signing shotgun certificates as though they were passport applications —they are treated in the same way. If we stuck more closely to Cullen's recommendations, we would not vote for the clause.
This is a difficult issue. I suppose that clause 1 will be passed. I do not know whether we are allowed to come back to it on Report, but I believe that the other place should have another careful look at it.

Mr. Mike Gapes: I had not intended to speak in this debate, but I listened carefully to the earlier debate and I did not vote in the Division. I want to explain my position. I felt unhappy because an option was put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Great


Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) on which, unfortunately, as a result of our procedures, it was not possible to vote. In those circumstances—

The Chairman of Ways and Means: Order. It was perfectly possible to have a vote. The hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) chose not to move his amendment.

Mr. Gapes: That is true, Mr. Morris. However, it was not my amendment.
The way in which the whole issue has been handled in the past few months is symptomatic of the way in which politics generally are dealt with. The mass media seize on an issue, which then becomes an issue of prominence to which politicians are expected to have instant solutions. They are expected to do something immediately to deal with the problem. The next week, the media seize on another issue and their attention switches somewhere else.
The media attention today—this is also true of the debate last week—is far less than it was during the frenzy over the summer. The same is true of so many different issues. One of the difficulties when we take decisions that will have implications for the future is that if the Government decide to have a three-line Whip and if, as has just been suggested by the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel), they do not then put forward the inquiry's recommendations as the basis on which amendments can be tabled and decided on by a free vote, they taint and distort the way in which the debate is conducted. That makes it difficult for those of us who might have had a slightly different position within any party to take an attitude that is slightly at variance. The way in which we structure the debates makes it difficult.
I hope that we shall vote against clause stand part. I shall do so if I get the opportunity because I have had discussions with members of gun clubs in my constituency. The secretary of one gun club has said to me exactly what other hon. Members have said: "I would rather have a total ban with proper compensation than the Government's proposals." He feels that the Government are proposing a device to save themselves money and that it is likely that many of the clubs will be driven out of existence. A man said to me this morning: "I pay £65 a year to belong to a club. Once we have all the insurance, all the paraphernalia and all the extra resources, the membership fees will go up, so ordinary people like me will not be able to practise our sport. Only very wealthy people will be able to continue." Parliament needs to think about those ordinary people. They feel aggrieved that, although they are law-abiding, decent people, they are being labelled as mass murderers.
Parliament has a duty when dealing with these matters to give people the decent compensation that they require for what they will have to give up. If the Bill is enacted as the Government wish, we should at least allow people

to continue with their sport in a properly regulated way, without the stigma that many of them feel they have today.

Mr. Dalyell: My hon. Friend talks about decent compensation. Decent compensation is a huge sum that may approach £1 billion.

Mr. Gapes: If so, Parliament will vote for it. Perhaps we should have given more consideration to the proposals of my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby, which presumably would have required less compensation.
Earlier today I spoke to a man who feels bitterly aggrieved and worried that a minority of people who belong to gun clubs will feel that society has singled them out. I hope that will not produce unpleasant consequences. We shall have to be extremely careful to ensure that the legislation is monitored vigilantly so that those in possession of a legal weapon hand it in and that there is no underground conduit into the illegal arms market.
We also have to address the gun culture by restricting violence on television—even in cartoons—and the war toys that popularise the Rambo mentality. That has nothing to do with individuals who practise their sport in a decent way, but it has a great deal to do with the society that creates such people as Thomas Hamilton.

Mr. Leigh: Sadly, the vote that took place exactly an hour ago was a sham. It will be talked up by the popular press as a great historic vote, but it was nothing of the sort. It is in the interests of the Government to argue that we are preserving a sport and it is in the interests of the Opposition to argue that it is a disgraceful outcome that will result in 20,000 guns remaining in circulation. Neither is true. The 20,000 guns will have to be held under such strict supervision that most clubs—certainly all those in Lincolnshire —will have to close and people who wish to participate in the sport will have to travel at least 50 or 60 miles.
It is a back-door prohibition of what was previously a legitimate and popular sport. It would have been far more honest if we had accepted that in the first place. Therefore, I deeply regret that we proceeded in that way. However, there is a chance to make some amends.
I have just expressed a view that is popular among people in the shooting community, many of whom feel deeply aggrieved. I hope that in her reply my hon. Friend the Minister of State will reiterate that the Government do not intend to drive the sport out of business altogether and that, in framing the regulations, the Government will allow the maximum number of gun clubs to survive so that people who wish to pursue the sport with lower-calibre weapons can continue to do so.

Mr. Henderson: I do not wish to prolong the debate unnecessarily. We had a useful three-hour debate on the substance of clause 1 so I do not propose to reiterate any of the arguments or respond to any points that were raised.
Several hon. Members mentioned compensation. I know that you called them to order, Mr. Morris, and that you would call me to order if I were to dwell on it now, so I shall not do so. However, we shall discuss the issue in detail in Standing Committee and we may also return to it on Report, when it may be appropriate to address some of the points that have been raised tonight.

Sir David Steel: The hon. Gentleman is technically correct, but all the parts of the Bill that deal with


compensation are to be discussed in Standing Committee. He may have the advantage of being a member of that Committee, but I do not.

Mr. Henderson: That is true, but the right hon. Gentleman will have the opportunity to comment on Report, and, if not then, perhaps on Third Reading.

Mr. Dalyell: If my hon. Friend is a member of the Government after May—indeed, this applies to whoever is in power—it will be rather more than a matter of detail to discover that, with all the pressures for extra spending on education, on the health service and on training, there is apparently a commitment to pay a huge sum in compensation. That is why I am nagging for the fifth time this evening about the general nature of the compensation. I do not think that the figure of £1 billion would be very far out if it is to be decent compensation.

Mr. Henderson: I had recognised a Linlithgow nag before my hon. Friend's most recent intervention. I know that he will press the Committee on that matter; we will have to deal with it Committee. As far as I am aware, the Government are not yet able to say what the sums will be, and I understand why that is so. There has to be a wide discussion on what has to be included in any compensation claims, and until the principles are established it would be very difficult to put a figure on the amount.
If the Committee divides after this debate, Opposition Front Benchers will support clause 1, as amended. Clause 1 does not have the content that we would have wished and for many reasons, some of which have been mentioned in the debate, the Government's position has many contradictions that will be exposed. Indeed, the shooting lobby itself is saying that the Government's position is untenable. The Opposition's position was that the clean-cut way to deal with the matter was to ban all hand pistols except for the agreed exemptions for those used in slaughterhouses, for vets and so on.
I believe that, overwhelmingly, the public want a total ban. Parliament is here not only to look at issues logically and objectively but—we hope—to recognise the strength of feeling in the country. I am in no doubt that people in Britain want fewer guns, so that the likelihood of them falling into the hands of maniacs or others is reduced. People in Britain believe that, in most circumstances, pistols should be banned. Having said that, there will be an expectation that we should proceed with the Bill in order to have further discussion. For that reason, Opposition Front Benchers will support what remains of clause 1.

Miss Widdecombe: Once again, the Committee would probably welcome some brevity. I should, however, like to address one or two of the specific points that have been made, especially those made by my right hon. Friend the Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke), which concerned the need of people to train and practise.
My right hon. Friend the Member for City of London and Westminster, South asked me to give an assurance that I recognised that people engaging in competitions needed to train and practise. Our provisions are very clear. There will be a complete ban on handguns of a higher calibre than.

22 rimfire. People who wish to continue to use those higher-calibre guns in competitions will not be able to do so in this country under the Bill's provisions. Those who are, for example, practising for the Olympics and four of the five Commonwealth games events for which .22 guns are used will be able to do so. My right hon. Friend is quite right that such people compete best—indeed, at the highest level it is essential—with their own weapons. That is why there is provision in the Bill for the movement of weapons from clubs for certain recognised purposes, which will of course include competition. We envisage that that movement would be effected by third parties.
I am sure that further consideration will be given to the points made by my right hon. Friend the Member for City of London and Westminster, South, but I wanted to address one or two of them because I am aware that he tried, without success, to speak in previous debates.

Sir Jerry Wiggin: On the question of transport and third parties, I understand that it is envisaged that the third party will collect the pistols from point A to carry them to point B. We will have a ludicrous situation because a vehicle containing 50 or 60 such items will be more vulnerable than if licensed shooters were allowed to look after their own pistols.

Miss Widdecombe: I understand that point and that is the sort of detail that will be discussed in Committee.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: It is important.

Miss Widdecombe: Yes, it is an important detail. There is much detail in the Bill, to which due attention will be paid during its various stages.
I greatly admire the persistence of the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). He should not have thought for one moment that I was not paying him attention, because I was faithfully writing down every question he asked. It is impossible to put a figure on compensation at present, for the simple reason that the figure that is estimated as being likely to be paid will depend on what we will compensate for. The position that we have taken is that we must compensate for any gun that is banned, whether it be held legally by an individual or by gun dealers as part of stocks.
We will have to compensate at the market value on the day before the Home Secretary's statement. It is clear that if guns are part of collections, as I have said previously, that will have some effect on the market value of the individual guns concerned. To get to the horrendous figures that the hon. Gentleman quoted, one would have to do a lot more than compensate for banned guns, and that is where the problem arises. When people say that we must compensate for all loss, not just for the guns but for all associated accessories —whether interchangeable with other guns or not—and loss of business, then the figures for compensation are larger. When the precise proposals are put in Committee, it will be possible to give figures, although they will not be precise because this is not an exact science.

Mr. Dalyell: I thank the Minister for the courtesy and, indeed, candour of her answer, but I must ask why the Government will pay compensation for stocks. If the


stocks of every gun dealer in the country will be the subject of compensation, we will be into astronomical figures.

Miss Widdecombe: No, the hon. Gentleman misunderstands. We are talking only about only banned guns. We are not talking about stocks of guns that gun dealers may hold in which it will still be legal to trade. Compensation will be paid specifically for banned guns, and we made that clear earlier. There is nothing unusual about my candour, as the hon. Gentleman called it.
I turn now to the speech of the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel), who again said tonight that we were legislating in haste. During earlier stages of the Bill, I tried to repel suggestion after suggestion from other Opposition Members that we had been too slow. We had to give careful consideration to the measures so that we introduced balanced and coherent legislation. The right hon. Gentleman asked what would have happened had the weapon used been a sawn-off shotgun. Sawn-off shotguns are already illegal. He also made his own case when he pointed out that shotguns have a use, outside sport and leisure, for control in the countryside. That is why handguns that have direct uses—those used by vets, for example—have been exempted from our provisions in the same spirit.
You have been very patient, Mr. Morris, and I am aware that I too have probably trespassed on issues that I should not have commented on directly, but they have been raised in the debate.

Mr. Leigh: Before my hon. Friend finishes, will she deal briefly with my important point about the shooting community? Central Government, local government and the police authorities will have considerable latitude in how they implement the new regulations on the safety of gun clubs. Will she make it clear on behalf of the Government that their view is that the new law should be implemented in such a way that the maximum number of clubs are kept open so that people can pursue the sport of .22 calibre shooting?

Miss Widdecombe: We will specify the conditions under which we require such guns to be kept and the security measures to be taken, and we will expect those to be enforced. We are not aiming to shut clubs or to keep clubs open. We are aiming to get the right conditions under which clubs may operate and to have them enforced. I support the clause, and I am grateful for the Opposition's support.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 1, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

To report progress and ask leave to sit again.— [Mr.Coe]

Committee report progress; to sit again tomorrow.

PETITION

University Funding

Mr. Jim Cousins: Mr. Deputy Speaker, you will know that the city of Newcastle upon Tyne is home to two universities and is one of the country's greatest university cities. I was handed this petition at a campus meeting at which the unions and staff representatives were discussing the result of their ballot for a day of action tomorrow. A remarkable young lady called Jenny Toomey, a science student at the university, spontaneously organised the petition with a group of friends.
The petition, from the students of the university of Newcastle upon Tyne, declares:
that the current level of funding to higher education institutions has led to larger class sizes, diminished tutorial provision, a reduction in practical work, and demotivation of staff. This has seriously compromised the quality of education and the standard of the university degree. In addition, the removal of student support through the loss of grant provision and entitlement to benefits has deterred many people from lower income families from undertaking courses in higher education. This is unjust, divisive and a waste of national resource. Britain cannot afford to ignore the long term consequences of under-investment in its education system.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Education and Employment to take account of the difficulties faced by students and by higher education institutions; to commit the Government to ensuring that British universities return to the high standards for which they were previously renowned; and to ensure that the funding councils are made open to public scrutiny, and that governing bodies of higher educational establishments be made accountable.
The petition then extends to the House the traditional and historic courtesies of citizens exerting their right to petition.

To lie upon the Table.

Fransware Nursing Home

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr.Coe.]

Sir David Mitchell: I am grateful to the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Bunts), for being here to reply to my plea. The subject is the appeals procedure relating to the closure of the Fransware nursing home, and it focuses on the actions of Hampshire county council social services department and of the local government ombudsman, who could not bring himself to investigate the county council's actions.
The appeal concerns a Mrs. Francis—a much respected member of Andover's community, who ran a rest or nursing home and who, to her total astonishment and that of the local community who knew her, to the astonishment of the county council's local area social services team and to the astonishment and disbelief of residents in her home and their relatives, was arrested at 8.45 am one morning and taken to Andover police station on a complaint that she had ill-treated her residents. She was released at 12.50 pm.
Immediately after her release, she was informed that Hampshire county council social services department, at county level, was making an immediate application to the magistrates to have the home closed on the ground of Mrs. Francis's physical and mental cruelty to patients. With only one hour and 10 minutes, Mrs. Francis found a local solicitor and briefed him for a 2 pm hearing in the magistrates court. The magistrates heard the case and, rightly, threw it out.
I must turn the clock back three months to January 1992, when Mrs. Francis took in a Mr. and Mrs. Earl—that is not their name, but I want to protect their family. Mr. Earl was known as a difficult and, some might say, plain cantankerous, old man. After some weeks, Mrs. Francis found that he disrupted the home so badly, upsetting other residents, that she gave him a month's notice. It should be noted that Mr. Earl did not want to leave. Indeed, he became very angry and objected strongly. On the evening before his departure, he told Mrs. Francis, "I'll get you for this."
I recognise that any county social services department would be in a quandary if it received notification from the police or any other source that patients, for whom II had a responsibility as the licensing authority, were allegedly being ill-treated. There have been too many cases in other parts of the country in which failure to act has rightly been criticised. I can understand Hampshire county council considering whether to withdraw the licence, but for goodness' sake, before taking such a drastic step, why did the council not inquire about the home from those who were really in the know?
For example, why did the council not say to the proprietor, "These charges have been made. What is it all about?" Why did the council not ask the relatives who were always popping in arid out to see patients, or even ask the local office, which would have told them,
Whatever time of the day you went into Fransware, the atmosphere was always friendly and relaxed"?
This is a home where the local county social services department found

relatives, social workers, district nurses and GPs were in and out all day long. If patients were ill treated surely someone would have noticed.
Having started on the road to closing the Fransware nursing home, however, there was no stopping the county council juggernaut. Aspects of the case would have made any reasonable person pause and think again. The relatives of nine out of the 10 residents wrote to condemn the county council's proposed action. The 10th resident had no relatives, but a local solicitor acted for her. On the closure of the home, he had so much confidence in Mrs. Francis that he asked her to look after his ward personally and privately.
I shall quote one of many similar letters. It was sent by Mrs. Byrne, who writes:
My mother has been a resident in the home for about three years. She is senile, almost blind and totally incapable of looking after herself. My father lives in Andover and we both visit the home frequently. Never have we had cause to complain or in the slightest way to suspect that the treatment my mother is having is anything other than suitable, correct and caring. She is always clean and content and clearly well fed … We visited frequently, often when not expected and never found anything in the slightest untoward.
In spite of what one might have thought, the county council proceeded.
One of the charges was that Mrs. Francis had ill-treated one of the patients—a sprightly old lady, who was eager to give evidence that, far from treating her roughly as had been charged, Mrs. Francis had treated her "gently". The county might have paused when it noted that, following its own official inspections in 1989, 1990 and 1991, letters were sent to Mrs. Francis that were generally complimentary. The social services department took the matter to its social services sub-committee.
Mr. J. R. French, a well-respected local solicitor retained by Mrs. Francis, said:
it is almost a foregone conclusion that the Council will succeed in its application before its own Social Services Sub-Committee … It is difficult to see what point there is in the Sub-Committee hearing unless the Council Director of Social Services is manifestly acting in bad faith (although in any event he will not be open to cross-examination).
Interestingly, he continued:
letters I have written to employees of the Department have been responded to by the Director, inviting me to make any contact with employees through him.
That sounds like an easy, unbiased way of getting information, does it not? He went on:
The implication is that he would not consent to their involving themselves in Mrs. Francis' 'defence'.
The county sub-committee duly confirmed the case of the county social services. There are certain aspects worth noting. On 15 October 1992, the council made a decision against Mrs. Francis. I shall mention three of the grounds.
First, the council said:
You have on occasions physically assaulted residents.
I can tell the House about that case. Mr. and Mrs. Earl were due to go to bed one evening, and the nurse who went to see them to bed came down to fetch Mrs. Francis, because a fight was in progress. Mrs. Francis went up and found that not only were the two having fisticuffs but Mrs. Earl was fouling her underwear. In that circumstance, Mrs. Francis had to do something physical to separate the contestants. It was alleged—I would not


be surprised at this—that she slapped Mrs. Earl to effect that separation. What the heck else she could have done, I do not know.
Secondly, Mrs. Francis was told:
You have on occasions forced a resident to drink against her will.
She had been advised by the doctor that that resident should increase her consumption of liquids. Thirdly, she was told:
You have subjected residents to a toileting routine that failed to give consideration to their needs, including their need for dignity, their wishes and feelings.
When incontinent old people do not go to the loo because they have dementia and cannot remember, what can one do other than have a routine to trot them through at the right time so that they are protected from wetting their underwear? Of course such things have to happen in the real world of people who are in advanced stages of old age and, in many cases, dementia.
Mrs. Francis appealed to the rest homes tribunal and the case was heard in March a year later. The first hearing took five days. The county council presented its case, and the witnesses were cross-examined by the council and by Mrs. Francis's solicitor. The five days did not give time for Mrs. Francis's case to be put at all. Accordingly, the tribunal adjourned until July. By then, Mrs. Francis was bust. The county had by its ill-considered actions destroyed her business, and negative equity in the premises polished it off.
The local government ombudsman wrote:
Section 26(6)(a) of the Local Government Act 1974 prevents the Local Government Ombudsman from investigating any matter for which the person aggrieved has or had a right of appeal to a Tribunal, except if the Local Government Ombudsman is satisfied that it is not reasonable to expect the person to resort to it. In this case Mrs Francis resorted to her right of appeal to the Tribunal. I considered carefully your contention that Mrs Francis could not afford to complete the appeal and therefore it would be open me to investigate her complaint.
I am of the view that it would be wholly inappropriate to exercise discretion and pursue this case. That is because, even if 1 were to make enquiries, I would have no powers whatsoever to challenge the decision made by Hampshire County Council to de-register Mrs Francis. That power lies only with a Tribunal or the Courts. I therefore confirm that I see no grounds to change my predecessor's opinion that this complaint should not be pursued further.
That letter is from the local government ombudsman, over the signature of Mr. J. R. White, and dated April 1996. I appealed to the county council to give a fair hearing, but I did not get very far. The leader of the county council, Councillor Hancock, simply reasserted what had been said by the chief executive.
Finally, this August I had a letter from Mr. Stephen Adam of Hampshire county council that took broadly the same line as had Mr. Hancock. It stated:
I appreciate your view that she"—
Mrs. Francis—
had a full defence but could not afford to continue to be legally represented and thus had to withdraw; whilst we can never know whether this would have affected the ultimate outcome, the fact in law is that her withdrawal concluded the tribunal's proceedings and that by choosing"—
choosing is the word that was used; it made me choke—

not to continue her appeal she had accepted that the case made against her had succeeded.
The poor woman has not had the opportunity to put one word of her case to the tribunal, because she ran out of funds as a result of the actions of the county council in bringing about her bankruptcy.
I raised the question of a reference so that Mrs. Francis could get other employment. The letter continued:
In the event of any request being made to the Social Services Department for a reference … We would be bound to take the above circumstances into account.
In other words, having destroyed her business, Hampshire county council is pursuing its vendetta to the point of destroying her ability to earn a living by refusing her a reference.
A constituent of mine has had her business ruined by the county council's overreaction and has been brought to the door of bankruptcy. She is unable to put her case and has been told by the ombudsman and county council that she has had an opportunity to appeal when clearly she has not. Finally, she has been denied a reference for a job. I hope that the county council officials, the chief executive and leader of the county council and the ombudsman are thick-skinned enough to sleep easy in their beds. I have wrestled with the case for four and a half years and explored every avenue to get Mrs. Francis the opportunity to clear her name. I invite the Minister to consider the appeals procedure for those very good reasons.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Simon Burns): I am pleased to have the opportunity to respond to my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir D. Mitchell) and congratulate him on securing a debate on a subject which is significant not only because of Mrs. Francis' important case but because of the whole question of the appeals procedures relating to the closure of Fransware nursing home. I recognise that it is an important issue. My hon. Friend has made clear his case that the Fransware rest home should not have been closed. It happened more than three years ago, and it would be wrong for me to try to go into the merits of the case brought against Mrs. Francis by Hampshire county council.
The Department of Health has no role in the quasi-judicial procedure prescribed in the Registered Homes Act 1984 except to the extent that it provides administrative support to the wholly independent registered homes tribunal. However, I agree that it is unfortunate that Mrs. Francis has not had an opportunity to present her side of the case and to defend her reputation and livelihood before the competent authorities. I understand her feelings about the way in which the procedures operated to produce this extremely unsatisfactory conclusion.
I hope that my hon. Friend will bear with me as I explain that the purpose of the Registered Homes Act 1984 and the enforcement mechanism that it provides is to ensure that people in residential care are safeguarded from harm. We cannot allow elderly, frail and often confused people to be given an inadequate level of care. The primary duty of the authorities that regulate homes is to protect vulnerable people. I suspect that no one would disagree with that. On the other hand, the home owner is also entitled to justice and fairness. 


It might be helpful if I briefly explain the procedures to be followed if an authority wishes to deregister a home. The Registered Homes Act 1984 sets out a number of stages that seek to ensure that allegations of poor care are properly investigated and dealt with in accordance with the rules of justice. Home owners against whom such allegations are made can first make representations to members of the authority. If necessary, they can subsequently appeal to a registered homes tribunal and from there to the High Court on a point of law.
In this case the appeal to the tribunal was started but was subsequently stopped when Mrs. Francis withdrew the appeal before her side of the case was put. I shall explain later the circumstances behind that withdrawal.
I am told that, before the investigations made by the police in April 1992 into allegations of abuse of residents, the home had given the authorities no significant cause for concern. The local inspectors reported only relatively minor matters that did not affect the home's registration. Following their early investigation, the police reported their concerns to the authority, which correctly began its own investigations. As my hon. Friend has pointed out, the police subsequently dropped their case.
In this context, it is important to be clear that two related but different issues were being considered. The police would have been investigating possible crimes of assault, whereas the authority was investigating a civil matter as to whether the home could continue to be licensed. In each case the standard of proof is different. The police have to prove a matter beyond a reasonable doubt, while the authority needs to prove its case on a balance of probabilities.
At about the time of the police action the authority considered that there was sufficient evidence for it to apply to the magistrate for an emergency closure order. Such orders can be made under the 1984 Act in certain circumstances of serious risks to residents. As my hon. Friend rightly said, the magistrate threw out that application.
I understand that local media publicity about the action in the magistrates court brought forward a number of ex-members of staff and ex-residents of Fransware who wished to give evidence about care at the home. Clearly, it took time for the authority, Hampshire county council, to investigate those subsequent allegations and to put together its evidence. Thus, it took about three months from the authority's first proposal at the end of April 1992 to cancel the homes registration to complete those investigations in July 1992.
Mrs. Francis had said that she wished to exercise her legal right to represent her case orally to the authority. A hearing was fixed for August 1992, but I understand that it was delayed until October 1992 so that Mrs. Francis could be legally represented. The committee of the authority hearing those matters decided that the registration should be cancelled. Mrs. Francis then appealed to the wholly independent registered homes tribunal, which received notice of the appeal on 5 November 1992.
Following the agreement of the parties, the tribunal was fixed for 24 March 1993 and scheduled to sit for five days. In the event, I am told that those days were taken up entirely with hearing the evidence of the authority. I gather that that was partly because Mrs. Francis's counsel cross-examined the authority's witnesses in detail. Indeed,

the whole of the authority's evidence had not been heard at the end of the sitting. The tribunal had to adjourn and offered the parties dates at the end of March 1993 and early April. Unfortunately, the dates did not suit the legal representatives of either Mrs. Francis or the county council . The hearing was finally scheduled to resume on 22 July 1993.
Before the hearing resumed, Mrs. Francis had to withdraw; I understand that that was for financial reasons. That left the tribunal with no alternative but to find for the authority and the home subsequently closed.
It is true that that meant that the residents of the home and their relatives were unable to lend Mrs. Francis their support in the appeals process. To my mind, that is very unfortunate, and as I said earlier, I can appreciate how Mrs. Francis must feel. The merits of the arguments on both sides have not been properly judged. Sadly, I have no powers to intervene and it is not for me to judge whether the home should have been closed or not. I do appreciate Mrs. Francis's sense of grievance that the issue was never finally determined, and her bitterness is, in my view, justifiable.
I can, however, tell the House that we are well aware that the enforcement mechanisms in this area are felt by authorities and homeowners alike to be remote, cumbersome and expensive. That was pointed out to Tom Burgner, who conducted our review of social services regulations and inspections. He recommended a new system of local mediation which might prevent some cases from having to reach the tribunal stage, involving as that does senior lawyers on both sides, the rigours of a judicial system and great expense. We are not sure that such mediation is the answer, but we agree that the enforcement mechanism needs to be examined to ensure that it operates expeditiously and fairly to resolve disputes in the interest of all concerned. In the coming few months, we will be looking at the rules of the tribunal and other parts of the appeals system to see how it might be made to function better.
In the White Paper, "Striking the Balance", on the future of legal aid in England and Wales, the Government said that although they had decided not extend legal aid generally to more tribunals, they would consider doing so where any particular tribunal would work more cost effectively if legal aid paid for representation. Such an extension would be dependent on the cost control measures proposed in the White Paper being in place. If it is clear that cases such as that of Mrs. Francis are the norm rather than the exception, I will certainly raise the matter of the extension of legal aid to representation at the tribunal with my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor, although sadly that will not help Mrs. Francis's case.
My hon. Friend also raised the possibility of the local government ombudsman investigating the actions of Hampshire county council in this case. I share my hon. Friend's concerns and was myself interested in the possible role of the ombudsman in determining Mrs. Francis' complaints. To that end, we have been in touch with the office of the ombudsman in the past day or so. I understand that its initial view is that, because Mrs. Francis has exercised her legal rights of appeal, there is nothing further that the ombudsman can do.
My hon. Friend may wish to pursue this matter further with the ombudsman to see whether the ombudsman will reconsider that opinion, in the light of all the facts and the


unusual circumstances involved in this case and given that the tribunal never reached a decision. Obviously, I can in no way prejudge, pre-empt or seek to persuade the local government ombudsman, who is totally independent, on this issue. As I said, my hon. Friend may wish to pursue the matter, but there is no guarantee that the ombudsman will change his view.
In conclusion, I understand Mrs. Francis's frustration at the fact that the procedures were never able to reach a logical conclusion and a decision on the case between

Mrs. Francis and Hampshire county council. It was through no fault of Mrs. Francis that the case ended as it did: she ran out of money so the tribunal was unable to conclude hearing the case and reaching a decision. As I have said, it is deeply frustrating and extremely unsatisfactory, and I have a great deal of sympathy for Mrs. Francis, who has suffered the cost, both financially and in terms of her personal well-being.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at four minutes past Eleven o'clock.